It looks as if Anthony hasn't yet left on his promised vacation his fans have paid for. Today he copied and pasted an article from, of all places, the Daily Caller (archived here, latest here). Now the Daily Caller is not regarded as a reputable source of scientific information. It's a right wing website from the USA, apparently widely read, particularly by Republicans seeking a daily outrage fix of sensationalised sentiment. (It's owned by a guy called Tucker Carlson, who replaced Bill O'Reilly at Fox. I gather there's not much to distinguish the opinions of the two.)The shock and awe at WUWT is over a new paper by a team of scientific heavy-weights, led by the world-renowned climate scientist, Dr. Benjamin D. Santer. The paper, published in Nature Geoscience, reports an exploration of the reasons for any differences between modeled and observed temperatures in the upper air (the troposphere). The authors examined data for the satellite era, January 1979 to December 2016, which is when there were more reliable temperature observations of the upper air.
[Note: the paper itself is about troposphere temperatures. The charts I've added are surface temperatures, in part because I'm still short of time, plus I don't have model data for the troposphere to hand (Fig 3).]
Actual forcings differed from estimate of the future
What the authors concluded was that there were only small differences in the twentieth century, which could be mainly explained by internal variability. The larger differences for much of this century were more likely to be because estimates of forcing were inaccurate. That is, the models are fine. The observations are also okay. It was the combined effects of two factors:
- The first is that there is a randomness associated with internal variability. That is, short term changes in climate can happen at random, and are not expected to be predicted at the same time in models as it happens on the planet. The models do show most of them, just not generally at exactly the same time as each other or as it happens.
- The second factor is that some of the estimates of forcings put into the model for the 21st century ended up being different to the forcings that actually took place.
The first factor is expected. If models are in phase with random variability it is by coincidence. It's not expected. That is, models will incorporate and show that random variability will occur, but this won't generally be at the precise time it will occur. It will usually be out of phase. Think of earth as just another model, one of many. The climate trend will be fairly consistent across models, however the year to year variability will differ between models. (When you combine the output from all the models, the random internal variability shown in individual models all but disappears, because of the averaging.)
The second factor more commonly happens when scientists have to estimate future forcings. A forcing could be the amount of greenhouse gas in the air, volcanic eruptions (causing temporary cooling), aerosol density (causing cooling), less solar radiation for a period, or albedo changes. For example, when estimated forcings in models were replaced with actual forcings, the difference between modeled and observed surface temperature all but disappeared. This is what the scientists found is what happened for troposphere temperatures also.
The scientists tested claims made by some people about sensitivity of climate models. They found that models are not oversensitive. That is, models are not over-estimating anthropogenic warming. Their research was focused on short term variations in the troposphere. The long term projections of climate models are unchanged by their research.
Some of the researchers recently published a different paper, which can be regarded as complementary to this one. In this Nature Geoscience paper, the researchers were asking the question about whether differences between model-simulated and observed tropospheric warming could be due to different sequences of internal variability in the real world and in model world, or to oversensitivity of models. They found that neither could explain the recent differences, which can instead be attributed to estimates of negative forcings being too low, compared to actuals. In the complementary paper, which was published in Scientific Reports, a different question was being looked at. That is, have tropospheric temperatures shown a “leveling off” in the last two decades. The answer was a clear, no. They didn't level off. Global warming has continued.
The scientists tested claims made by some people about sensitivity of climate models. They found that models are not oversensitive. That is, models are not over-estimating anthropogenic warming. Their research was focused on short term variations in the troposphere. The long term projections of climate models are unchanged by their research.
Some of the researchers recently published a different paper, which can be regarded as complementary to this one. In this Nature Geoscience paper, the researchers were asking the question about whether differences between model-simulated and observed tropospheric warming could be due to different sequences of internal variability in the real world and in model world, or to oversensitivity of models. They found that neither could explain the recent differences, which can instead be attributed to estimates of negative forcings being too low, compared to actuals. In the complementary paper, which was published in Scientific Reports, a different question was being looked at. That is, have tropospheric temperatures shown a “leveling off” in the last two decades. The answer was a clear, no. They didn't level off. Global warming has continued.
How Ryan Maue collaborated with Michael Bastasch to mislead Daily Caller readers
A scientist, Ryan Maue, collaborated with a climate science disinformer, Michael Bastasch, on an article at the Daily Caller, and Anthony Watts copied and pasted their article (with no link at WUWT as usual).
Ryan Maue is one of those scientists who wears his ultra right wing ideology on his sleeve - and in his tweets. He seems to think that anyone who doesn't support Donald Trump (and promotes action to mitigate global warming) must be "far left". His activism includes writing articles for the right wing Daily Caller. He has complained that he doesn't share the values of scientists who urge that we protect ourselves and address global warming. (I surmise from the brief interaction I had with him, that he is happy to let the world burn.)
The Santer team's paper was reporting useful research. The article by Ryan Maue and Michael Bastach was misrepresenting that research for their own nefarious purposes. Same with Anthony Watts, whose only contribution was a copy of the paper's abstract, a silly cartoon, and a misleading headline and opening sentence:
The New ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming – a shocking admission by “Team Climate”That is wrong. There was no "shocking admission", and global warming didn't come to a standstill. As reported in another recent paper by Santer et al, there was no pause or hiatus in global warming. There was a short term slowdown in warming, but warming didn't and certainly hasn't stopped. See for yourself. The chart below shows the annual average global surface temperature (not the upper air, which is what the Santer paper is discussing). Hover over the chart to see how much it's risen. Note that there was an El Nino last year, which made it a bit warmer than it would otherwise have been. That was on top of the long term inexorable rise in global temperature.
From the “well maybe there was a hiatus after all” walkback department. Even Mann is on board with this paper.
Figure 1 | Annual global mean surface temperature since 1880. The red line is a loess smooth to illustrate the trend. Data source: GISS NASA
There's no ENSO event likely this year, but 2017 will probably still be the second hottest year on record.
Ryan Maue and Michael Bastich opened badly, writing:
A scientific consensus has emerged among top mainstream climate scientists that “skeptics” or “lukewarmers” were not long ago derided for suggesting — there was a nearly two-decade long “hiatus” in global warming that climate models failed to accurately predict or replicate.First of all, there has not been a hiatus in global warming, as you can see by the above chart. Secondly, even the slowdown in the rate of warming was nowhere near two decades long.
Below is the chart for the past thirty years - from 1987 to 2016. Again, this is of the surface not the upper air.
Figure 2 | Annual global mean surface temperature, 1987 to 2016. The red line is a loess smooth to highlight the trend. The black line shows the misleading cherry pick pushed by science disinformers. Data source: GISS NASA
Only by cherry picking data and drawing a straight line from 1998, when there was an unusually hot El Nino year, to 2012, and ignoring the years before, after, and in between, could one find a flat line. And even that's only fourteen years, nowhere near two decades.
I've no idea why Ryan Maue, who professes to be a scientist himself, though now acknowledging fellowship with fake sceptics, would find anything in the paper "shocking".
Ryan Maue also misrepresented the other paper I mentioned by Santer and co. Maue claimed "Santer’s paper only evaluated a selectively-edited and out-of-context portion of Pruitt’s statement by removing the term “hiatus.”"
What does Ryan think that "hiatus" means? You and I know that it means a pause, a break in continuity. But there's been no break in continuity of global warming. And if you want to know what Scott Pruitt said, see for yourself:
I am aware of a diverse range of conclusions regarding global temperatures, including that over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming, which some scientists refer to as the "hiatus."Contrary to what Ryan and Michael wrote, Scott Pruitt clearly stated that he regarded the "hiatus" as equivalent to a "leveling off" of warming. For completeness, here is what the Santer paper quoted:
In response, Mr. Pruitt claimed that “over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming”The smaller quote was not "out of context". And, as you can see from the charts above, there has been no leveling off of warming. Ryan Maue and Scott Pruitt are wrong and Santer and co are correct.
Ryan Maue has come out as a science disinformer of the worst kind
Ryan Maue also pushed the false notion that NOAA data is wrong. He was referring to a paper from 2015 (see here also). He's definitely come out as a science disinformer of the worst kind. That is, he's a working
Now the only part of the Daily Caller article that was correct was where the authors pointed out, by a quote from the paper, that the difference between modeled warming of the troposphere and observations was "partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations".
Ryan Maue and Michael Bastasch didn't elaborate. They didn't explain what that meant. They didn't bother to explain that it is difficult to predict future forcings. They didn't bother to explain that the Santer paper found no problems with the models themselves, only with the predictions of what at the time were future forcings.
The reality of long-term anthropogenic warming
Not only that, but the Daily Caller writers made one important omission. Ryan and Michael finished their article with a quote from the final paragraph of the paper:
What’s interesting, though, is Santer and his co-authors say their paper is “unlikely to reconcile the divergent schools of thought regarding the causes of differences between modeled and observed warming rates.”
In other words, the “uncertainty monster” is still a problem.What they omitted is arguably much more important. The last sentence of the paragraph from which they quoted was this:
Although scientific discussion about the causes of short-term differences between modelled and observed warming rates is likely to continue, this discussion does not cast doubt on the reality of long-term anthropogenic warming.
A co-author response about the paper
One of the co-authors of the paper, Professor Michael Mann, was quite blunt on Twitter.
In no way does paper cast doubt on models.— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) June 20, 2017
Instead it shows the importance of nailing down the forcings, the most important being GHGs.
He also pointed out the obvious. This is the sort of investigatory work scientists do, something that Ryan Maue and other disinformers don't want people to know:
Natural forcing & internal variability guarantee temporary slowdowns (& speedups) in warming. It is worthwhile to understand them.— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) June 20, 2017
In case you missed it, Michael Mann has just been recognised for his important contribution to climate science communication, being awarded the prestigious seventh annual Stephen H. Schneider Award for Outstanding Climate Science Communications from Climate One at the Commonwealth Club.
I can't see Ryan Maue or Anthony Watts ever being recognised in this way. (They look as if they are aiming for, but probably won't get, a climate misinformer award.)
Don't explode
Just as Ryan Maue and Anthony Watts want to give the impression that global warming isn't as bad as it is, there is always the risk that people will try to give the impression that it's "exploding". Victor Venema has just published a nice blog article about that, and it's worth a read.
From the WUWT comments
As you'd expect, there were the usual conspiracy theories and silliness from the rabble at WUWT. Anthony Watts has managed to whittle down his audience to disinformers, fake sceptics, and the dregs of the dismal dimwits.
Tanstafl probably doesn't have a clue what the paper was about or what it reported. However she or he doesn't trust scientists.
June 20, 2017 at 8:52 am
Wow! Could there be integrity still in CAGW climate scientists?
Bartleby is a hard core denier who sees the world only as one big money pit. (Sheesh, deniers are money mad. Greed-driven so and so's , aren't they, unlike scientists.)
June 20, 2017 at 2:38 pm
D.J. Hawkins writes: “No. Desperate CYA maneuvers to preserve possible future grant opportunities, yes.”
I think you have that right. The cAGW community, who have always been a politically motivated sub-population of real climate scientists, are doing some backpedaling (fierce backpedaling I think). That cohort sold their integrity for cash on the barrel years ago. We’re just seeing them do it again.
The Trumpeting Zone wants to end subsidies on fossil fuels - like heck.
June 20, 2017 at 8:56 am
Good, time to stop the crippling green policies and taxes. Figure out how the climate really works, and then let the free market and energy abundance help us to deal with any adverse effects.
Clyde Spencer uses the thread to complain that fortune hasn't favoured him and he's not one of the beautiful people.
June 20, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Hollywood Glitterati: Those fortunate enough to be born beautiful or handsome, have a pleasant voice, and the ability to memorize the lines of a song or script. They believe that their good fortune also imbues them with special insights on science and politics that lays upon them the burden of sharing their wisdom with their fans, who are less fortunate.
Phillip Bratby complains that he read somewhere on a denier blog a claim that science was settled. I don't think he understands anything about any science at all. A lot of science is regarded as "settled". Germs exist and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, for example. Yet there is still a lot to learn - how to combat some diseases, and the detailed intricacies of cloud microphysics.
June 20, 2017 at 8:56 am
But I was told several years ago that the science was settled! I wish these “top” “scientists” would make up their minds.
Many or most of the comments are really, really stupid, like this one from noylj2014noylj:
June 20, 2017 at 8:59 am
Does this mean that we need another round of temperature adjustments? Soon, we will just be comping out of an ice age in the ’60s or ’70s…
After all, a basic tenet of science is to bend reality to fit your model…
And this comment from Moderately Cross of East Anglia is almost as bad.
June 20, 2017 at 9:02 am
So the scientifically responsible and correct moral choice would be to teach students that the climate is not, as per their previous assertions, behaving in step with the predictions of dangerous and unprecedented warming then, wouldn’t it?
Any chance of that happening? No, I thought not. But never mind, there isn’t any possibility of the BBC, Guardian or New York Times telling their audiences about how a major part of the alarmist fantasy just fell apart.
Tim Hammond has a wrong understanding. He doesn't say where he got his misunderstanding from, but I'll hazard a guess it was from a denier blog.
June 20, 2017 at 10:50 am
My understanding is that the models cannot either hind cast or forecast from first principles, and thus have to be endlessly “fudged” to be able to do either.
That’s fine (and not unusual in science), if people admit it. But they don;t, and continue to claim that the models work well, when the obviously do not.
ferdberple is one of the few who seems to have an inkling. However rather than accept it he falls back on a fantastical conspiracy theory that all the scientists around the world are faking all the data. How dumb is that!
June 20, 2017 at 9:19 am
We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
===============
in other words, by adjusting the past, we have been feeding lies to the models and they have given us a crazy answer as a result. Big surprise. 2001 Space Odyssey showed what happens when you lie to computers.
Their answer? We need to adjust the post 2000 forcing data to match the pre 2000 adjustments. More aerosols. We need more aerosols post 2000. That’s the ticket.
J asks a question that no-one bothers to answer accurately. The answer, J, is no. Forcing due to CO2 is no different to what the models project. It's other estimated forcings that turned out to be greater than were used as estimates.
June 20, 2017 at 9:21 am
So, what does this mean?
” We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”
Does it mean the forcing due to CO2 was not as big as they thought?
CO2 forcing was not meeting the 20th century projections?
cephus0 is an odd one, saying he or she hasn't read the paper but professes to know what was in it. The full paper doesn't say models are "currently useless". That's crazy talk.
June 20, 2017 at 12:12 pm
Does this man have the first clue as to what the purpose of a conclusion in a scientific paper is supposed to be and what the meaning of ‘non sequitur’ is? Can’t access the full paper but how do you go from establishing that the models are currently useless as predictors of anything – when all of the predictions of AGW are based on those models – and finish your conclusion with the statement that none of the above casts any doubt on “the reality of long-term anthropogenic warming”.
That right there is crazy talk but I suppose poor Ben had no choice but to once again make with the little clown dance or otherwise he was in an express elevator to Den1er Hell – going down!
Here is a chart comparing observed global surface temperatures to CMIP5, The model forcings are estimates from around 2005 onwards, not actuals.
Figure 3 | Annual global mean surface temperature since 1880. The black line is the multi-model mean of CMIP5 models. Data sources: GISS NASA and KNMI Climate Explorer (CMIP5)
A few more foolish comments before finishing. This one is from Tenn who doesn't believe the irrefutable evidence showing the world is heating up very very quickly.
June 20, 2017 at 10:33 am
Climate sensitivity is likely a small, negative number (-0.5). It is the ONLY explanation for the hiatus that makes sense. In fact you can perfectly replicate observations using this assumption.
Looking at Figure 3 above, it is past time for Wharfplank to stop "calling bullsh*t", don't you think?
June 20, 2017 at 9:51 am
Ah, great, pass the ammo. My friends and acquaintances know not to poke this bear about CAGW. I’m steadfast that until the models mirror observations that I’ll be calling bullsh*t whenever the subject comes up. So happy!
Clay C has it back to front. CO2 doesn't stop short wave radiation, which is what the sun puts out, from reaching the surface. What it does is absorb long wave radiation that is radiated upwards from the surface, and is known as the greenhouse effect. I wonder if he thinks the world is cooling as CO2 accumulates? Now that would be really weird.
June 20, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Wrong answer. Green House Gases stop 20% total firelight from the sun ever reaching the planet.
20% light not reaching the planet is referred to as a reduction in surface energy density.
That is called cooling.
———————————————-
MarkW June 20, 2017 at 2:47 pm
CO2 doesn’t block energy from the sun.
References and further reading
Benjamin D. Santer, John C. Fyfe, Giuliana Pallotta, Gregory M. Flato, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Ed Hawkins, Michael E. Mann, Jeffrey F. Painter, Céline Bonfils, Ivana Cvijanovic, Carl Mears, Frank J. Wentz, Stephen Po-Chedley, Qiang Fu & Cheng-Zhi Zou. "Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates." Nature Geoscience (2017): doi:10.1038/ngeo2973 (shared)
Santer, Benjamin D., Susan Solomon, Frank J. Wentz, Qiang Fu, Stephen Po-Chedley, Carl Mears, Jeffrey F. Painter, and Céline Bonfils. "Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades." Scientific Reports 7 (2017). doi:10.1038/s41598-017-02520-7 (open access)
On the recent warming surge - blog article by Victor Venema at Variable Variability.
ReplyDeleteLook at the last sentence of the abstract again?
The one that says "due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used"
What are "external forcings" ? Eh? I don't have any in my back pocket...
What Santer said was that Foster & Rahmstorf had a point
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta;jsessionid=53AEB177BF1E5DA544051C25BE172EBD.ip-10-40-1-105
No?
bjchip
You've got it. It's not the models that are inherently wrong, it's the estimates of 21st century forcings that were the likely culprit.
DeleteExternal forcings are things like volcanic eruptions, aerosol emissions (eg coal pollution from Asia), less radiation coming in from the sun, more or less accumulated greenhouse gas, etc.
Nothing at all surprising here, but I ran a Monte Carlo analysis (100K iterations) in which I sampled the subset of randomly generated sets of data which had:
Delete1. an underlying trend of .0124/yr and an underlying sd of .1466--the UAH 6 regression parameters,
2. whose initial value was in the range 2.98-3.18 sd's (the 1998 residual error value of 3.08 plus or minus .1 sd's., and
3. which extended 15 to 27 years in length in steps of 2 years.
First, remember that the trend is BUILT IN to each and every dataset. It's there. We know it in advance. We just "happen" to start from a local max by accident! Guess what percentage of the time significant trends are actually seen statistically going on into the future when we start at this extreme local max?
15 years: 0.7%
17 years: 2.9%
19 years: 8.6%
21 years: 19.9%
23 years: 35.2%
25 years: 53.4%
27 years: 71.1%
The bias from starting at a local max extends far into the future (as does the influence of starting from a local min the other way btw, but deniers would NEVER do that!). In particular, at 17 years, to find a significant trend is very unexpected...well except to deniers.
Of course this can also be viewed as an overly complex way of identifying an outlier in which something else is going on as well as the underlying trend. Or, it can be viewed as a demo showing that inferring linear regression probabilities from a consciously picked point involves bias (something anyone competent in stats already knew). Or both.
Repeating the analysis on GISS data and regression parameters gives the same results except that by 20 years most of the bias is overtaken by the actual underlying trend.
I have a post that explains jgnfld's problem in more detail: Cranberry picking short-term temperature trends.
DeleteThanks Victor...I read your blog regularly but must have missed that entry.
DeleteI also produced 2 additional graphs all based on 100K iterations which show the bias introduced across the board from cherrypicking local mins to local maxes over series of various lengths. One uses the UAH 6.0b data the other uses the same GISS data as Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cahill's recent Env. Res. Letters article (which was my original stimulus for doing this).
Again, nothing at all surprising, but does quantify the bias in a fairly quantitative way.
http://www.nfgarland.ca/GISSLevel.png
http://www.nfgarland.ca/UAHLevel.png
I like the metaphor of cranberry-picking. Cranberries grow in bogs where they float to the surface before being picked. So no one is going deep into the analysis at all.
DeletePick the cherries that are easy to reach or the cranberries that float to the surface.
...but does show the bias in a fairly quantitative...
Deletejgnfld, it is a nice idea to start with an explicit high value. I just use noise, but the warming peak of 1998 was quite exceptional. I hope that climate change will not lead to more of such huge El Nino's.
DeleteNot sure if I completely understand what you did. You should start a blog. :-)
Not my nice idea...it takes the genius of the likes of Ted Cruz to come up with one that good!
DeleteAll I've done in the graphs is to bin the percent of significant trends found given an initial value at various distances from the trend line (e.g., more than -3 sd, -3 to -2 sd, -2 to -1 sd. etc.). The first column shows the percent found given no binning (i.e., no cherrypicking).
Nonsense like this about hiatuses from WUWT would be derided by anybody with the minimal amount of wit necessary to understand Skeptical Science's escalator. You wonder how stupid people can be.
ReplyDeleteBut then, apparently, the answer is very stupid indeed. Add to that the existence of a trillion dollar industry funding this nonsense: the only difficulty is figuring out who is stupid and who is phoney stupid.
The models just needed an adjustment to their epicycles...
ReplyDeleteThis comment is needlessly absurd, and it's not at all complicated to figure out why that is.
DeleteOh look, Eric "Brave Sir Robin" Worrall is back. Eric are you going to run away again?
DeleteEric, do tell us all how the product of your oracular vision has worked out on the last two occasions you have entertained us all with your amusing predictions.
DeleteOr do we get to sing yet again:
"Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!"
Which part of the word 'tropospheric' is giving the WattFans and Worrellies such a problem?
DeleteHa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
WUWT posts 270, Hot Whopper posts 19. WUWT trembles.
DeleteWhere would science be without all those clicks eh?
DeleteThis Trumpian obsession with HUGE is perhaps the reason WUWT makes such an effort to break records: temperatures as high as possible, bigger floods, longer and hotter heat waves, more millions suffering famine, the BIGGEST number of ridiculously wrong articles about climate science and policy, and the internet'S MOST ENORMOUS collection of dim, dismal dismissives.
DeletePS WUWT might or might not tremble, but HW has visibly shaken Anthony Watts on many occasions :)
270 posts and not one of them asking where the OAS and their money has gone? You sheep just carry on bleating.
DeleteSou, AFAICT Ryan Maue is not a scientist as alluded to early in your article, but rather a meteorologist working for Weatherbell Analytics, as lukewarmer Andy Revkin notes here:
ReplyDeletehttps://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/a-meteorologist-examines-survival-skills-and-climate-change-as-a-heat-dome-scorches-the-southwest/
Don't know the full extent of his credentials, but if he is a scientist, he's not likely to be a climate scientist. At least he's a practicing meteorologist though, unlike Anthony Watts.
Metzomagic, I think he'd argue he still does research at Weatherbell. Maybe not as intensely as an academic researcher, and he's not a prolific publisher. He earned a PhD and did a post-doc stint before joining (don't laugh - he really did take this job) Joe D'Aleo and Joe Bastardi at WeatherBell Analytics LLC. Here's his bio on Linked In: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-maue-b3609a2a/
DeleteTo be on the safe side, I've changed "climate scientist" in the article to "meteorologist". I don't think that lowers ethical obligations relating to professional courtesy and misleading the public.
Delete'tanstafl' is probably a Dutch climate revisionist. He, white, male, of, course.
ReplyDelete"You've got it. It's not the models that are inherently wrong, it's the estimates of 21st century forcings that were the likely culprit." - Sou
ReplyDeleteSo, it's not the sausage grinder it's the pork fed into the grinder that's the problem?
Like that time the waiter told me I'd get a spicy Italian but I ended up with a smoky Kielbasa instead?
"So, it's not the sausage grinder it's the pork fed into the grinder that's the problem?"
DeleteNo, it is due to estimating the adult weight of a piglet, and after it grows up, learning that it was a bit heavier or lighter than your previous estimate.
Your sausage grinder then produces more or less sausage than you estimated when the piglet was born. There's nothing wrong with your sausage grinder (model, to make the analogy clear), however.
It's like the guy who puts sugar in his gasoline tank, then calls up Ford and yells at them for their car breaking.
DeleteIt's not the car that was the problem. The car works fine; the problem is the input.
We don't have a way of telling the future with external forcings, so we draw up scenarios. "Under Scenario A, the models say *this* will happen. Under Scenario B, the models say *that* will happen. Under Scenario C..."
So when the real world comes in somewhere between scenarios C and D, it's silly to say that the models were wrong for using scenario B. They're just scenarios. The models don't tell you which one to use.
The reaction to Santer's admission of failure by alarmists is similar to that of Climategate's "out of context" protests.
ReplyDeleteTell me again how CO2, a trace gas (o.o4%) which can only absorb IR in the 15 micron band (8% of the planet's IR emission spectrum and grossly outperformed by water vapour in this band) in the cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of the warmer planet's surface. This phenomenon (cooler heating warmer) has never been observed in any experiment whatsoever in any form of heat transfer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics beats cargo cult science every time.
You misunderstand the application of the second law.
DeleteRadiating energy back to the planet is NOT the same as a net transfer of heat from the planet to a molecule (or the radiative properties of the planet as a whole). The NET transfer to the molecule happens and the second law is unbroken while the amount of radiative energy that reaches outer space is reduced by the re-radiation intercepted by the planet surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTfnuX-HVk8
Educate yourself please.
bjchip
0.04% is still a lot of molecules
Deletehttp://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/07/wildfires-in-north-america.html?showComment=1436432608104#c21008872347669432
http://rabett.blogspot.co.nz/2017/06/004-is-lot-of-molecules.html
It isn't actually easy to do science. You have to be unreasonably curious AND smart enough to do it AND at the same time dumb enough to accept the pittance of pay that goes with the long hours and work.
Anonymous, it's okay that you don't understand the greenhouse effect. However your "Tell me again how CO2, a trace gas..." question suggests that people have explained it to you in the past and it went over your head.
DeleteIf science (and Google) is beyond you, perhaps you just need to accept that you're not cut out for it. Try macrame.
Bah. This:
Deletehttp://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/06/no-hiatus-or-vacation-from-denial.html?showComment=1498102600089#c1809796606556678731
AnonymousJune 22, 2017 at 10:40 AM - You might want to add this to your reading list: First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Deletehttp://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Second law of thermodynamic denier? Ye gods. You should write a paper, it will make you famous - but probably not for the reasons you think :-).
Delete"Tell me again..."
DeleteTell us again: how many Nobel prizes do you possess? Because you must be the greatest scientific genius ever if you know better than every prestigious scientific organisation on this planet. There is no middle ground here: the alternative to you being a scientific genius is that you are a mindless prick parroting fossil fuel industry nonsense.
I am not going to respond to the trolling of course - the hours are way too long and the pay way too short.
DeleteAnother way of responding to the "trace gas" climate science denier talking point is the concentration of the gas is irrelevant, it is the amount of gas and it's radiation backscatter effect that is relevant. Dr Keith Strong did a good video on it some months ago.
Anonymous:
DeleteAh, the "trace gas" bollocks. So this trace gas doesn't green the planet then. Of course it doesn't .... err, cos it's well "trace".
Do you suppose stratospheric ozone is "trace" as well?
Yep, it is.
But what does that do for us then?
Stops UV frying the biosphere.
FFS
Oh, and a demonstration of a colder object transferring heat to a warmer one happens all the time around you, if you had the scientific wit to realise. Err, the photons from the colder object (all things radiate - you knew that of course) are not sentient - they don't stop and say to themselves "err this object I'm about to impact is warmer than me, so I'll just have to go back".
It's called net transfer idiot, the warmer object does NOT get any warmer .... it just cools at a little slower rate.
It's called science my friend and you certainly don't find much of that on WUWT.
Go back where your DK syndrome is appreciated and, indeed, worn as a badge of honour.
#satire
DeleteJust shows what you do not understand TB. The photons do not make the decision to go back because they do not even start! They work out that they will hit a warmer object so they just do not begin. (That's physics). This involves a bit of looking at the future as well; in case anyone moves a warmer object into their path after they (would) have started. If you understood the first thing about quantum physics you would know this. Obviously I do because - er - I did a PhD in it.
(A different Anon).
That network of photoneurons residing deep within each photon is capable of remarkable calculations!
DeleteWhere does one get a Ph.D. in photoneurology?
Just because we cannot communicate with photons doesn't mean they can't communicate with each other.
DeleteI have it on good authority (from a photon communicator, who happens to have a PhD in photoneurology) that before leaving any rock, they have a chat with each other. They then send out emissaries to any other photons residing in objects in a straight line path from their home rock.
If these rock photon emissaries encounter another object in their path, the emissaries have a chat with the photons in that other object.
After exchanging pleasantries (usually about the weather), they get down to photon business. They proceed to share information, including the current temperature of each of the two objects (the rock and the object in the path of the rock photons).
If one object is hotter than the other, the photons in the hotter object agree they will shoot out as a beam and the photons in the cooler object will take a rest from beaming.
If the objects are both of the same temperature, there is agreement of a mutual photon exchange.
Where they run into real trouble, they get in a mediator. For example, sometimes the rock photon emissaries encounter both an ice block (colder than the rock) and some volcanic lava (hotter than the rock). The mediator helps them work out whether the rock photons shoot out a beam, or the ice block photons shoot out a beam, or the lava photons shoot out a beam. Usually the compromise is that they all shoot out at the same time. Messy, but photons are resigned to life being messy. They say they like it that way.
"They work out that they will hit a warmer object so they just do not begin."
DeleteOh but I do like the idea that photons have the ability to predict the future. I think that might just trump the "ice ages are caused by supernatural forces" meme we were treated to by our last visitor from WUWT.
"Where does one get a Ph.D. in photoneurology?"
DeleteI got mine off the Internet. There is a whole lot of stuff out there to do your own research. It must be all correct because all the websites reference each other and say the same thing. Occasionally i got misled into looking at so called "science" websites. You could tell they were talking rubbish though because it was too difficult to understand and made my brain spin.
You have to print your own degree certificate though ...
(A different Anon PhD Photoneurology).
Unknown: You are confused about radiating energy and transfer/absorption of energy. Energy will not transfer from cool to warm. It breaks the SLoT and has never been observed.
DeleteDownwelling IR does not raise the temperature of the warmer planet surface and it cannot pierce more than a few microns of the ocean skin - so no heating of the oceans. It has never been observed.
Tony Banton - Rude person - "It's called net transfer idiot, the warmer object does NOT get any warmer .... it just cools at a little slower rate."
But something that cools slower is not actually increasing in temperature, is it?
According to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation the power a body radiates at is dependent on its temperature to the fourth power. The temperature of the planet depends on how much energy it receives from the sun. Is the planet actually increasing in temperature as it is cooling "slower" from the mythical GHE? Lower energy photons from the atmosphere do not have any effect on the planet that is emitting photons at a higher energy level.
Show me any evidence in thermodynamic terms where a cooler object has raised the temperature of a warmer object.
I will save you some time - there are none or else we would have invented the PMM.
Sou, you think that photon absorption might be about the sentient photon? The SLoT is mainly about entropy and irreversible processes. Straw man argument.
The rest - just insults.
Did you bother to watch the video? DID you? I think not.
DeleteRadiation is different from net heat transfer. The cold object does not have a NET warming effect on the warm one, but both are radiating energy.
This means that your objection that the cool object does not warm the warmer one is a mistake of context. The cooler object does not "raise" the temperature of the warmer one, but it will slow down the heat transfer away from both together.
Black body radiation is dependent on the temperature of the object radiating, it is and remains ignorant of of the temperature of any potential target, something that has been cleverly pointed out elsewhere. Second law governs net entropy changes in an isolated system... and you need to figure out what the system boundaries actually are.
Downwelling radiation that warms molecules of seawater at the surface doesn't prevent those molecules from mixing with the rest of the ocean. Penetration is unnecessary where conduction, convection and evaporation are all occurring.
None of those occur at the fuzzy edge of the atmoephere.
Some of the planet's surface radiation warms the troposphere, some warms the stratosphere, and both re-radiate back to the surface.
To get the SAME amount of energy to be radiated to space, as comes in from the Sun the effective temperature of the planet has to be some temperature T.
This is equilibrium. The gozinta is equal to the gozouta.
But the effective surface of the planet is the planet PLUS its atmosphere and the CO2 has caused the outer layers of the atmosphere to cool.
The temperature we are personally concerned with is the surface temperature. Adding the CO2 made the effective temperature at the boundary of space, lower. Reducing radiation out.
Energy out HAS to match energy in... and radiation is the only game in space, so as you observed the temperature to the fourth power of the has to increase to get that effective temperature up to where the gozinta and gozouta balance. So the surface temperature rises, the radiation from the effective surface then rises and the effect is all perfectly reasonable in terms of Physical laws.
I know you won't accept this but it is true... the planet earth radiates energy toward the Sun.
The Sun radiates energy towards the earth and the NET is a massive transfer of energy to the planet earth, but that does not change the fact of that back-radiation.
Now educate yourself. That does NOT mean run to some wingnut blogsite to get more rubbish arguments to dump here. Your arguments so far are (to engineers and scientists) utterly ridiculous and regrettably that does lead to insults... the video I linked earlier is an excellent way to avoid further such.
Thank you
bjchip. Typical warmist physics. There is no NET heating between objects at different temperatures. Warm heats cool, one way, SLoT. Entopy is not a NET phenomenon.
DeleteWhat black bodies are you referring to? The earth is not a black body, neither is the atmosphere.
So the DLR "heat effect" in the skin of the oceans warms the rest of the miles of the depths of the oceans? LOL! This is like, "My mum sucked a peppermint and we all sat round her tongue to get warm!".
The rest of your post is just garbage. CO2 cannot drive the climate. It consists 0.04% of the atmosphere, it is only opaque to 8% of the earth's IR spectrum ( 15 microns) and is heavily in contention with water vapour at this band.
This argument is like the few drops of cyanide in the swimming pool analogy killing the family.
Actually a .04% body weight dose of cyanide is quite lethal.
DeleteYOUR system isn't isolate mate. Now watch the video. The energy comes FROM the Sun and leaves THROUGH the atmosphere. If the atmosphere causes it to leave more slowly the temperature at the surface rises to get the net to balance. Everything radiates.
DeleteYour dismissal speaks well for your self-schooling. Does Heartland issue degrees in scientific idiocy now?
Everything can have its radiative properties approximated in terms of the Planck radiation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
Earth is more accurately a "gray body" because of its atmosphere, but I didn't think confusing you further would be particularly useful.
CO2 does drive the climate, but I weary of giving you detailed answers and will simply link or copy already posted explanations.
From SkS
"The total number of CO2 molecules above our heads in the atmosphere is more important than their percentage in the atmosphere. If the amount of inert nitrogen gas (N2) in the atmosphere were to be cut in half then the percentage of CO2 would jump (to about 600 ppm; 0.06%) without a change in the absolute amount of CO2 and no substantial change in the energy balance of the Earth. Adding a huge number of energy-absorbing CO2 molecules to the atmosphere doesn’t change its percent number very much, only because it's being added to a vast inert N2 background"
A more complete treatment.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Again... educate yourself - FIRST. You are making it very difficult to be polite. Ask questions of experts, don't question facts of physics that have been understood for half a century.
Anonymous:
DeleteSorry but I call it as I see it. Anyone who thinks they know better than what empirical Science tells us is an idiot - and I only use that word where it is merited. You do.
The hubris required irrespective of the the lack of scientific understanding is gob-smacking my friend. The world does not work the way you would want it, tough that eh?
"But something that cools slower is not actually increasing in temperature, is it?"
It is if the slower rate of cooling HAS to match the incoming energy.
You do understand that in a dynamic radiative thermodynamic system (all BTW) radiated energy MUST equal absorbed energy for the object to maintain the same temp?
As as has been explained above, the Sun is providing energy to the climate system at a set rate - which has be dissipated to space at the EXACT same rate.
Otherwise the climate system will warm.
It isn't and it is.
Simple physics.
"Show me any evidence in thermodynamic terms where a cooler object has raised the temperature of a warmer object..
FFS: It DOESN'T.
I refer you to the "sentient photon discussion above"
But actually I saw it frequently as a practising Meteorologist.
You can yourself if you were anything close the scientifically inquisitive.
Try observing your car on a frosty night.
What happens when cloud obscures the stars ... any cloud. Cloud 6 miles up at a temp of -30C will do.
What will happen?
Given that it is a marginal night with temps just sub-zero ... then the layer of hoar frost will melt.
So we have a colder object "warming" a warmer one.
Minus 30 "warming" something at minus 1.
No.
It is the heat flux from the surroundings that do the warming.
And that flux was created by the Sun.
Try using your eyes sometime.
And not inhabiting the nether world of the likes of Watt's.
Especially prepared via dog whistles and resident "attack-dogs' to discourage anyone with scientific understanding to participate (save a hardy few).
So it comes down to this Anon....
A) The world's Earth scientists going back to Tindal and Arrhenius are incompetent.
B) The world's said scientists are committing a "scam".
C) They know more than you.
Now, the world really does wonder which is the most likely my friend.
There is of course another explanation for your scientific illiteracy here.
You are simply a Troll in the full meaning of the word.
And are here for a laugh.
Does this mean arctic explorers need to freeze their eyeballs to see where they are going?
Delete"Does this mean arctic explorers need to freeze their eyeballs to see where they are going?"
DeleteExcellent. I think I will italicise that and bold it to give it the prominence it deserves.
(An Another Anon PhD Photoneurology and eyeball defroster)
Tony Banton
Delete""Show me any evidence in thermodynamic terms where a cooler object has raised the temperature of a warmer object..
FFS: It DOESN'T."
The IPCC disagrees with you: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
Frequently Asked Question 1.3
What is the Greenhouse Effect?
".....the Earth’s greenhouse effect warms the surface of the planet. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth’s surface would be below the freezing point of water. "
If you are going to be a good little warmist you must stick to the script.
Are you one of those poor souls that believe that back radiation from ghgs raises the temperature of the planet surface by 33C? Lol.
Anonymous is one of those strange creatures who believes the earth stays warm by magic.
DeleteAnonymous, what you are in essence saying is that we actually cannot measure the Cosmic Background Radiation on earth. After all, this radiation corresponds to a blackbody temperature of a few Kelvin (about 2.7 to be more precise), and according to your view, those photons cannot interact with hotter objects.
DeleteAnd yet it has been measured. On many occasions. To such precision that we can even measure the extremely slight anisotropy.
Anonymous, you are saying at June 23, 2017 at 9:13 AM that CO₂ cannot act as a 'greenhouse' gas and warm the atmosphere because the atmosphere is cooler than the surface. Besides missing the points of physics that others above repeatedly rub in your face, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that your post of June 22, 2017 at 10:40 AM refers to the 'greenhouse' gas properties of water. How is it that water can act as a 'greenhouse' gas and warm the planet, but CO₂ cannot?
DeleteAre you in effect saying that a 'greenhouse' gas needs to be at a certain minimum concentration before its properties go from net cooling to net warming? Can you explain the alternative physics behind this remarkable phenomenon?
bjchip. Your posts read like a cross between Skeptical Science and Real Climate.
Delete"Radiation is different from net heat transfer. The cold object does not have a NET warming effect on the warm one, but both are radiating energy."
Are you saying the warmer object also aborbs energy from the cooler object as well as the cooler object absorbing energy from the warmer object? If so, then two energy transfers? Yes? Which energy transfer breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
"Downwelling radiation that warms molecules of seawater at the surface doesn't prevent those molecules from mixing with the rest of the ocean. Penetration is unnecessary where conduction, convection and evaporation are all occurring. "
Of course you can point to the data for this and the amount of energy transferred to the ocean from back radiation? Or is this just a rehash of an article on the DLR that appeared in Real Climate a few years ago? It also "forgot" to include the experimental data.
You seem to have this idea that temperatures can be controlled by some sort of CO2 dial like the thermostat dial in the hall. If so, then why are there no data tables to show the recorded temperature rises from the forcings of various ghgs at different altitudes etc? Why base all your evidence on what the models tell you when the models keep getting it wrong?
"Now educate yourself." I have. That's why, unlike yourself, I am not taken in by AGW and CAGW BS.
Are you saying the warmer object also aborbs energy from the cooler object as well as the cooler object absorbing energy from the warmer object? If so, then two energy transfers? Yes? Which energy transfer breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
DeleteYes.
Yes.
Neither.
Not sure if there is a point to providing references for studies on the radiation budget, since it's obvious that although Anonymous requested information, he doesn't really want it. He is the type who thinks that "scientists don't know nuffin'", while putting on a shameless display of the dismal depths of his own ignorance. (Is it sexist of me to think that Anonymous must be a "he"?)
DeleteSo this is for the benefit of other people.
It looks as if there may be another paper soon from Martin Wild and co, going by this conference abstract.
Then there are these:
Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Jonathan H. Jiang, and Hui Su, 2016: "Unforced Surface Air Temperature Variability and Its Contrasting Relationship with the Anomalous TOA Energy Flux at Local and Global Spatial Scales." J. Climate, 29, 925–940.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0384.1 (pdf here)
Kiehl, J. T., and Kevin E. Trenberth. "Earth's annual global mean energy budget." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78, no. 2 (1997): 197-208. link
Loeb, Norman G., Bruce A. Wielicki, David R. Doelling, G. Louis Smith, Dennis F. Keyes, Seiji Kato, Natividad Manalo-Smith, Takmeng Wong, 2009: Toward Optimal Closure of the Earth's Top-of-Atmosphere Radiation Budget. J. Climate, 22, 748–766. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1 link
Trenberth, Kevin E., John T. Fasullo, and Jeffrey Kiehl. "Earth's global energy budget." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90, no. 3 (2009): 311-323. link
Wild, Martin, Doris Folini, Christoph Schär, Norman Loeb, Ellsworth G. Dutton, and Gert König-Langlo. "The global energy balance from a surface perspective." Climate Dynamics (2012): 1-28. link
"Are you one of those poor souls that believe that back radiation from ghgs raises the temperature of the planet surface by 33C? Lol."
DeleteYes, along with all those that understand basic empirical science. LOL
And it's not a matter of belief it's a fundamental observation.
That you do not have the understanding required, makes it pointless trying my friend - then we have your certain denial of it for ideological reasons.
Needless, it is easily done and involves the temperature the Earth is seen at from space and what we measure on the surface.
They are 33C apart.
The Earth cannot be hotter as seen from space than the BB temp that absobed Solar energy would have it to be.
Cannot emit more energy than it absorbs.
It isn't ..... ergo there is a GHE ... else there would be no life on Earth
SO NASA's satellies are falsifying that too?
And the Russians?
And the Chinese?
Tell you what.....
Write a paper and earn a Nobel my friend .... or at least self-publish in Principia-scientific, where all the deluded geniuses publish.
Sue:
DeleteAs I'm sure you know ... as many of us here do from experience.
There is a certain GW Denier that are so far down the rabbit-hole that you get hypoxia attempting to communicate with.
There is that "with one bound" hand-waving going on.
Life is so lovely in Lewis Carroll land.
They invent the world in their imaginings.
None of that inconvenient "sciencey" stuff.
I suspect this Troll inhabits Spencer's Blog actually, there are several Sky-dragon Slayers on there that he/she has an MO fingerprint of.
This despite Spencer having no argument with the GHE.
(please excuse)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
Tony, the commenting style is like other ridiculous deniers, isn't it. His attempts to sound condescending fall flat because he doesn't have a clue when it comes to physics and climate.
DeleteIt's obvious that he didn't take science in high school. I think he might have picked up some words from reading the Sky Dragon book or read various blogs about it, but doesn't know what those sciency sounding words mean.
Hello DK Anonymous
DeleteQuite clearly you have not "educated" yourself despite your claim and the exhortations of the people here to do that. What you forget is that education does not stop - you keep improving your knowledge and correcting your misunderstandings with continuing learning and iterations of what you think you know. You are quite clearly stuck because you have only gone to one source of explanation and you are shutting your mind to the idea you have some basic science wrong. This is what denier misinformation relies on and it will only keep reinforcing your misperceptions.
Try looking through all these posts, yours included, and see if you can challenge yourself to think about your assumptions of what you know.
For the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics try starting here. Khan considers why you will not see a lump of ice form spontaneously in a glass. As you can see he reduces the idea to a few molecules and talks about the probability of ice forming. If you can undo this one misunderstanding perhaps you will consider exploring further.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Oh drat. Wrong web page. Try this:
Delete2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Well said, satire. The wayward, teenage photon has been truly grounded.
DeleteAnonymous.
ReplyDeleteNumbers are obviously not your thing, so you may want to read this:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/07/wildfires-in-north-america.html?showComment=1436432608104#c21008872347669432
in order to garner some context. Consider it carefully, and consider the admonishments above about your Dunningly-Krugered proclivity for over-estimating your ability to speak with any scientific credibility.
Global warming is real, and it is happening, and we're still at the just-tying-the-shoe-laces stage. With 1.0-1.2 °C warming we're already seeing profound social and ecological impacts, and it's only going to get worse. Consider that if this is currently happening:
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2017/06/21/las-vegas-heatwave-grounds-flights/
with 1.0-1.2 °C warming of mean global temperature, how much worse will it be with 2, 3 or 4 °C warming? The number and severity of extremes will increase exponentially with further temperature increase, so I hope that you're prepared to put your name to being a supporter of the destruction of a habitable planet. If the nature of this risk increase escapes you, read Tamino:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/global-warming-basics-loaded-dice/
If you want to use the D-K effect to win an argument I suggest you don't have an argument. What next? Cognitive dissonance?
DeleteShow me one piece of empirical evidence that shows that ghgs in the cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of the warmer planet surface.
I will save you time because there are none.
Show me one piece of empirical evidence that shows that CO2 in the cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of the warmer planet surface.
I will save you time because there are none.
Show me one piece of empirical evidence that shows that anthropogenic CO2 in the cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of the warmer planet surface.
I will save you time because there are none.
Show me one experiment where back radiation from object B raises the temperature of object A from which object B received its temperature increase. I will save you time because there are none.
"Show me one piece of empirical evidence that shows that ghgs in the cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of the warmer planet surface."
DeleteDid you ever notice that it gets colder on a dry night than on a humid or cloudy night?
"Show me one experiment where back radiation from object B raises the temperature of object A from which object B received its temperature increase. I will save you time because there are none."
DeleteG&T died an ugly death long ago. As Eli notes "The claim in G&T is that heat CANNOT flow from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface IN ANY AMOUNT WHATSOEVER. This is a crock. The second law, even without work input simply restricts the NET.
Somehow they neglect to mention that the NET heat flow is from the surface to the atmosphere and not visa versa. The NET is what is reduced by the IR back radiation"
""Show me one piece of empirical evidence that shows that ghgs in the cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of the warmer planet surface."
DeleteDid you ever notice that it gets colder on a dry night than on a humid or cloudy night?"
Victor and other anon, empirical evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change was never put so succinctly. Lol.
Where has net internal energy transfer/absorption ever been observed between a warmer and a cooler object? I will save you time because there is no evidence.
Look at Maxwell's equations and Poynting vectors. Back radiation can only interfere with higher energy radiation leaving the planet surface. It cannot raise the temperature of the planet surface. This is crazy alarmist "science".
G&T are 100% correct.
Buy yourself an infra-red thermometer or camera and you will see that on a dry night (less greenhouse gases) the sky is colder (sends less radiation to the surface) than on a humid and cloudy night.
DeleteAnon: "Where has net internal energy transfer/absorption ever been observed between a warmer and a cooler object? I will save you time because there is no evidence."
DeleteHow about you re-examine what the second law permits and denies you, the nature of an isolated system, the presence of the Sun in the climate system and your ridiculous assertion that G&T understood what they were talking about. They didn't and you don't.
It is really pretty simple. I did write a long one before but I'm not doing it again. Go and educate yourself. You are getting half the story and you are ignoring the Sun where it is most important... as the source of *all* the energy. So when you discuss Maxwell and Poynting you got that explicitly correct, but were entirely wrong because you excluded the Sun from the system.
Educate yourself. Please.
Anonymous you are confusing black body radiation with spontaneous absorption and emission.
DeleteYes the non greenhouse gases cannot radiate more black body radiation down than up as they do follow the second law as you put it. Black body radiation does depend on the temperature sigmaT^4.
Spontaneous absorption and emission is totally different as it has no dependance with temperature.
Greenhouse gases can absorb IR radiation as a quantum and then reradiate at a random direction a short time later.
If you consider a layer of GHG in the atmosphere the IR radiation it absorbs is spontaneously emitted randomly or 50% down and 50% up. The next layer does the same and so forth. This is what produces a net down radiation or reflection. This is completely independent of GHG temperature.
A carbon dioxide laser works by having an inversion of energy states by pumping the population of CO2 molecules in the laser cavity so there are more with absorbed IR than not. The very high output is then due to what is called stimulated emission where with each pass of the radiation in the cavity by the two mirrors the CO2 molecules then radiate in phase. This is intense enough to cut steel sheet.
If CO2 was not a greenhouse gas it would not work as a laser medium.
I suggest you read a bit about spontaneous absorption and emission. Einstein wrote a paper on it.
Bert
The responses to Anonymous are important and worth digesting, in case there is anyone else reading this who is having difficulty with this aspect of climate science. I'll add a bit more.
DeleteAnonymous, if you think there is no greenhouse effect, or there is something wrong with the second law of thermodynamics (which you seem not to understand), then to complete your argument against it, you'd have to come up with another explanation for the earth to be able to support life as it exists.
Before you spend too much time on that effort, it would pay you to read a bit about how scientific knowledge on the subject evolved. Spencer Weart, the renowned physicist and science historian has an excellent article about this, which isn't very long and is easy to read.
Without the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere we would not be here. This is from an article by Chris Colose, after pointing out that without the atmosphere, the average surface temperature of our planet would be 255K or minus 18 C or minus 0.67 F. This means that most of the earth would be uninhabitable. He wrote:
This temperature is below freezing, and so this shows that if the Earth’s temperature were purely based on the amount of solar radiation it receives, it would be far from habitable. The gap between our present day comfort, and an iceball planet is due to the fact that some of the outgoing infrared radiation is not immediately sent right back to space, but is absorbed by the atmosphere, where some is radiated downward to the surface. This is due to the fact that we have greenhouse gases, which are transparent to incoming solar radiation, but absorb outgoing infrared radiation strongly. ...The mean temperature of the Earth’s surface is actually 288 K [15 C or 59 F], which says that the greenhouse gases are responsible for a 33 K enhancement. No longer freezing, but rather comfortable and unique to the solar system.
You all seem to be sticking to this meme of NET heat transfer not breaking the SLoT. NET heat transfer implies bidirectional energy transfer or did that slip your minds? If it is bidirectional energy transfer then one of those transfers breaks the SLoT. G&T are 100% correct.
DeleteOh Sou you actually believe ghgs raise the temperature of the planet surface by 33C? Wow! the sun on its own cannot melt ice but with good old back radiation it can do it a treat. Do you have any empirical evidence for this? Didn't Berkley Labs claim in 2015 that Feldman et al had provided the "First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface"? What happened after that? Did they record what temperature rise this CO2 caused at the earth's surface?
Anonymous, have you never stopped to ask yourself why the surface temperatures on the moon are so different to surface temperatures on Earth?
DeleteHave you never questioned why your strange views of the application of the second law of thermodynamics are so at odds with those of scientists?
Have you never considered that the system the Earth is part of is not an isolated system, that it includes radiation coming in from the sun and radiation going out to space? That if there is no temperature change then what comes in is the same as what goes out? That when there is warming, then less radiation must be going out than is coming in? That something must be slowing down the outward radiation? That it is most probably something in the atmosphere, such as molecules of greenhouse gases?
If you can't write something sensible about climate science, or physics, or thermodynamics then your time is better spent doing something else, as is ours.
"Anonymous, have you never stopped to ask yourself why the surface temperatures on the moon are so different to surface temperatures on Earth?"
DeleteDo think it might have something to do with the moon having no atmosphere or water, lower gravity and a 30-day rotation cycle?
"Have you never questioned why your strange views of the application of the second law of thermodynamics are so at odds with those of scientists?"
You mean the bit where I say that heat cannot flow from a cooler object to a hotter object? You don't think that is true? You think Clausius was wrong, then? Do you have any experimental proof of this?
Let me ask you this. If there were no ghgs how would the atmosphere cool to space? If you then added ghgs to the atmosphere would the atmosphere become warmer now that it was actually losing heat to space through the existence of ghgs? Tricky one, eh?
Do think it might have something to do with the moon having no atmosphere or water, lower gravity and a 30-day rotation cycle?
DeleteGravity has nothing to do with it. Rotation period and atmosphere most certainly do.
You mean the bit where I say that heat cannot flow from a cooler object to a hotter object?
No, what we're all surprised at is you thinking that objects only radiate energy if they are warmer than everything else in their system - aka your sentient photon theory.
Let me ask you this. If there were no ghgs how would the atmosphere cool to space? If you then added ghgs to the atmosphere would the atmosphere become warmer now that it was actually losing heat to space through the existence of ghgs? Tricky one, eh?
Simplistically and hypothetically, if there were no greenhouse gases, then there'd be nothing to slow IR radiation at the surface from escaping to space. It would get very, very cold, especially at night. The average temperature of the planet would be so low that the Earth would be an iceblock.
I don't know why you think that's at all "tricky". It's quite straightforward science.
The only tricky bit would be that if there were no greenhouse gases there'd probably be no life (far too cold), therefore any atmosphere, if there was one, would be quite different from what it is at present.
Anon (the greenhouse effect denier one):
DeleteConsider Earth. Now consider a second planet with an atmosphere also at 1 atm containing no ghg's at all, or where God decreed the greenhouse effect inoperative, but lit by a sun such that the temps averaged Earth normal. (Trust us, the Sun would have to be either warmer or nearer, but that's neither here nor there in this example.)
Now, instantly snuff out each sun. Will one planet cool more quickly at the surface or will both cool at exactly the same rate? Will the outgoing radiation from the 2 planets equilibrate at the same rate?
Anonymous Dunning-Kruger.
DeleteExplain Snowball Earth. Please.
All of you. Where is the evidence that atmospheric CO2 drives surface temperatures? I'll save you the time; there isn't any. Nada, none, zilch.
DeleteThe normal claim of climate fantasists is to keep banging on about overwhelming evidence and 97% consensus but when asked to produce evidence of the greenhouse effect or the warming effects of back radiation then suddenly they start to babble.
If there is so much evidence for AGW then why did Berkley Labs claim that in 2015 Feldman et al had provided the "First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface"? There was no reference in that paper to how much surface warming it produced. By Berkley Labs claiming this, it was an admission that prior to this paper there was no evidence to support AGW.
And finally NET HEAT TRANSFER. If it is NET then there must be HEAT TRANSFER in both directions. If it were HEAT TRANSFER in one direction and absorbed radiation transfer with no HEAT TRANSFER in the other direction then it would not be NET HEAT TRANSFER would it? NET HEAT TRANSFER breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics because one of the transfers (cold to hot) has no mechanism akin to spontaneous heat transfer.
Can't you understand that the planet and its atmosphere are self-regulating. If ghgs produced positive forcings and feedbacks we would have been dead long ago. That hypothesis is a PMM. Even common sense bears that out.
FFS there isn't even any evidence that AGW produces a more dangerous climate!
G&T were 100% correct.
@DK Anonymous
Delete"And finally NET HEAT TRANSFER. If it is NET then there must be HEAT TRANSFER in both directions"
So you are saying that one body stops radiating? Yes or no?
The body stops radiating proportional to T^^4? Yes or no?
Does the other body start radiating at a higher rate to make up for the shortfall? Perhaps proportional to T^^8? (sarc)
Anon PhD
Anonymous you are ignoring completely what a greenhouse gas is and even its existence.
DeleteContinually claiming that non greenhouse gases are not greenhouse gases just does not cut it.
I am sure you have no real knowledge of statistical mechanics and thermodynamics but that you are just regurgitating a nonsense denier meme constructed to sound scientific and plausible.
Thus ALL your ignorant pseudo scientific ravings are nonsense.
Bert
@Anonymous who knows it all
DeleteI guess you could not be bothered to look at the video I suggested? You are a typical denier who cannot be bothered to make any effort.
Time to call time I think.
Time for the hotwhoppery, more like.
DeleteWe tried. we failed.
Shakespeare Hamlet Act 3 Scene 1
Delete"God has given you one face and you make yourselves another. You jig and amble, and you lisp, you nickname God’s creatures and make your wantonness your ignorance. Go to, I’ll no more on ’t. It hath made me mad. To a hotwhoppery, go."
All of you. Where is the evidence that atmospheric CO2 drives surface temperatures? I'll save you the time; there isn't any. Nada, none, zilch.
DeleteThere is a heap of evidence - the IPCC reports provide a compilation of science, Richard Alley has an excellent explainer video, the evidence began in the 1800s, such as John Tyndall's experiment.
If there is so much evidence for AGW then why did Berkley Labs claim that in 2015 Feldman et al had provided the "First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface"? There was no reference in that paper to how much surface warming it produced. By Berkley Labs claiming this, it was an admission that prior to this paper there was no evidence to support AGW.
Have you read that paper? It was about observations of change in radiative forcing as CO2 increased, not surface temperature. The extra energy is in the entire system - oceans, surface and atmosphere. More than 90% of the extra energy is absorbed in the oceans. You're not going to get anything meaningful in regard to just one component (surface temperature change) from a change in radiative forcing over a period as short as ten years.
And finally NET HEAT TRANSFER. ...
Your problem here stems from your refusal to make the time and effort to learn about heat, and how energy is transmitted. Take a few classes in high school physics, or read some of the comments above.
Can't you understand that the planet and its atmosphere are self-regulating. If ghgs produced positive forcings and feedbacks we would have been dead long ago. That hypothesis is a PMM. Even common sense bears that out.
You don't seem to understand the terms you use, such as "forcing", "feedback", and "self-regulating". What do you mean by "self-regulating". Are you saying that if there is an external force there will be a change in the system (a feedback) which will compensate?
A change in greenhouse gases doesn't produce other forcings. It is a forcing itself. Any radiative forcing will have an effect on other parts of the system, and that's what's known as feedback.
FFS there isn't even any evidence that AGW produces a more dangerous climate!
Is that the root of your denial? That you don't want to believe we humans could do anything at all that would be dangerous? History shows we are quite capable of harming the planet and hurting each other. The AMS publishes a special "Extreme Events" publication each year, which contains evidence that we are already causing dangerous and deadly weather.
The problem is that we don't actually speak the same language??? If we say that "suddenly they start to babble" == "Suddenly they start to use science, facts and logic", he makes PERFECT sense :-)
Delete@anon June 24, 2017 at 5:32 AM
" Where is the evidence that atmospheric CO2 drives surface temperatures?"
Oh wait....
" then why did Berkley Labs claim that in 2015 Feldman et al had provided the "First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface"?"
Which is it... There is no evidence? or There is evidence but it is very recent?
So far you've offered zero evidence of your own and been buried in evidence.
You know why they talked about it? It was obvious from the rest of the data. All they really proved was that Physics works... it wasn't exactly a discovery.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/full
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
The problem you have mate, is that you think yourself smarter than all the scientists on the planet, and you are wrong about that.
Which means you might be wrong about a whole bunch of other things. You have a huge emotional investment in being right but... fortunately... you ARE anonymous. Here you can say "oops" and walk away and *nobody* will know who made such foolish statements. "Admitting error clears the score, and leaves you wiser than before" - Its a lot smarter to learn from error than to persist in it.
"Can't you understand that the planet and its atmosphere are self-regulating. If ghgs produced positive forcings and feedbacks we would have been dead long ago."
No - because there is a limit to how much of a gas can come out of the ocean, or the rainforest or the permafrost. There are indeed limits, but there are also some potentially deadly sudden jolts to the system. Dead long ago? No. There is evidence that those jolts have occured in the distant past, when we had tails and swung from trees, but now any such jolt could well be enough to end human civilization and we are inviting it.
Me:then why did Berkley Labs claim that in 2015 Feldman et al had provided the "First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface?
Deletebjchip:Which is it... There is no evidence? or There is evidence but it is very recent?
Oh FFS bjchip! Feldman et al failed on so many levels over an 11-year period. Bottom line Berkley Labs claimed CO2 forcings measurements for the first time. Where were the tables of CO2 forcing v surface temperature increases?
If there is "overwhelming evidence" for CO2 in the radiative warming effects of the GHE then why was there no evidence in this study? Simple answer is that they could not find any.
There is no point saying that there is overwhelming evidence of the heating effects of atmospheric CO2 on the planet if the first claimed CO2 forcings paper did not actually measure any surface temperature rise.
As usual the rest of your post is opinionated garbage that does not have any evidence to support it.
Try actually citing some papers that show a direct causal effect between atmospheric CO2 and surface warming. I will save you time because there are none.
It's already been explained to you that they weren't looking at temperature and why it would make no sense to do so. They were looking at radiative differences over time. What they found was what was expected.
DeleteI'll let you look up how much the surface has warmed and how much extra heat was added into the ocean over that period.
No more comments from you Anonymous.
@DK Anonymous
DeleteTo the HotWhoppery with you
I would add Sou that using very accurate equipment the results were to a few tenths of a percent to what was predicted. Why DK Anonymous thinks this makes his case is unfathomable. I guess it is one of those bits of evidence that misinformers feel they have to undermine because it is too conclusive.
DeleteDK Anonymous is demonstrating a classic case of arguing using a strawman. Saying the science does not show something that the paper never claims and never set out to do.
I was really hoping that DK Anonymous would explain Snowball Earth using his special brand of DK pseudoscience...
DeleteAnon provides a prime example of what Martin Gardner referred to as "peevish ignorance", which betrays no understanding of the topic being discussed, although Anon has been given every opportunity to acquire such understanding. It's the same peevishness that compels writers to drop casual references to Feynman and Maxwell when it's obvious that they've never come within eyeball distance of "The Feynman Lectures On Physics", or Maxwell's "A Treatise On Electricity And Magnetism".
Delete"Ryan Maue is a PhD meteorologist at WeatherBELL Analytics and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute."
ReplyDeleteSo he is weatherman doing a Dr Curry? Where do they find these people?
"Tell me again how CO2, a trace gas (o.o4%)"
DeleteTell me again how 333 micrograms (a trace amount 0.00033% by weight) of LSD can make a 100 kilogram human higher than a kite?
First up, apologies all. I missed all the comments from Anonymous (the science denier one), who either doesn't understand basic physics or is being silly. Strictly speaking, those comments could be regarded as disinformation, are in conflict with the comment policy and I should have removed them.
ReplyDeleteThey got some good responses though, so I'll let them stand.
If anyone else is confused by the mechanism by which our planet is warm enough for life to exist in the way it does, I suggest read some of the responses and the references.
I notice that the Anonymous "Dragon Slayer" can't distinguish between a sarcastic send up and serious comments, so it's likely that he or she will never understand the science that explains why the earth isn't a solid block of ice.
"I notice that the Anonymous "Dragon Slayer" can't distinguish between a sarcastic send up and serious comments"
DeleteNeither can I. Pretty much every comment at WUWT could be a Poe as far as I can tell.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
DeleteBravo, millicent!
I've deleted several of the latest comments from Anonymous (the DK one). He or she was being repetitive and the comments made no sense.
ReplyDelete"made no sense".
DeleteThat is an understatement! :-)
Yes there is an argument about wrestling with a pig that seems to me to be appropriate at this point.
DeleteHe was told a long time ago that the system he was misunderstanding was not isolated. I don't think he appreciated the many pearls arrayed before him either.
Sou I have seen this meme in many places generally where the readers are not deniers.
DeleteThe basic trick is to quote the Stephan Boltzmann Equation about black body radiation and the second law of thermodynamics. They use this then to prove scientifically that a non greenhouse gas cannot act as a greenhouse gas. The next inference is that no gas is a greenhouse gas.
They conveniently do not mention spontaneous emission and absorption of IR quanta by greenhouse gases that does NOT have any temperature dependence let alone temperature gradients.
Even the Stephan Boltzmann Equation is based on quantized photons as without quantum effects the radiation luminance at short wavelengths would theoretically be infinite with classical statistical mechanics treatment of the atoms as harmonic oscillators.
I did my physics in the late sixties and early seventies and all this stuff has been known since early last century.
In the late 1890's classical physics could not explain the spectral output of the newly invented light globe with varying temperature. It was only when quantization was invoked that theory matched experiment. This was the Stephan-Boltzmann Equation for black body radiation.
The photo-electric effect was another. Einstein got the Nobel Prize for explaining it by invoking quantized photons. Never for Relativity!
This then led on to the whole field of Quantum Mechanics.
It is difficult enough to teach advanced Physics without these charlatans spreading half truths to make their lies sound plausible.
All we can do is call them out when we see them. Bert
Agree Bert. I think I studied high school physics around the same time as you did and learnt all this basic stuff back then. I did a semester of modern physics at Uni a bit later and not a lot had changed. Perhaps a few more particles were mentioned, that's all.
DeleteNow I'm no spring chicken, which is the reason I've surmised that Anonymous (DK) has never studied high school physics.
(I learnt about the greenhouse effect from a CSIRO guest lecturer in the 1970s, too. Again, the basics haven't changed in decades.)
I have a degree in Physics Sou that I obtained part time. We Physicists tend to look at any solving any problem from first principles and that is what can fool us into thinking we know it all when we become old farts.
DeleteThe more I learn about climate science the more I find out that almost nothing is intuitive as it is a very complex system.
When I was studying Physics we used to discuss whether quarks existed!
Anonymous (DK) was just regurgitating a meme constructed by people who do understand the science but have perverted their knowledge to save the estimated 100 trillion dollars of unused fossil fuels that should stay where they are. In the ground.
This is the real fight. Bert
>>When I was studying Physics we used to discuss whether quarks existed!
Delete:)
I have been learning a lot about climate, partly through researching the claims deniers make and finding them wanting. It's a fascinating and intellectually stimulating endeavour, and a challenge to keep up with the latest research.
DeleteI agree that you cannot rely on intuition or the over-rated "common sense". (The latter is often more common than sensible.)
Who would have thought anybody could be so devoted to the second law of thermodynamics and yet not understand it.
DeleteSome of the deleted comments have been shifted to the HotWhoppery.
ReplyDeleteIf you make the wrong choice to navigate to the HotWhoppery you do not find the latest comments and no hint how to get there. Just the 2015 comments. That is starting from "More at HotWHopper" above.
DeleteSlightly frustrating.
Thanks for picking that up. Fixed now.
Delete