Posted by: graemebird | November 20, 2006

For The Permanent Record

In anticipation that another environmentalist blog will retrospectively erase all of ones queries…. I’m going to record this conversation for the permanent record.

These guys might be ok. But you wouldn’t believe the Stalinist lengths these alarmists will go to to airbrush past debates:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/chinese_navy_disproves_global.php

Tim, you wrote:
Before the silliness about lambda Monckton also has this:

“The UN expresses its heat-energy forcings in watts per square metre per second. It estimates that the sun caused just 0.3 watts of forcing since 1750.

Begin in 1900 to match the temperature start-date, and the base solar forcing more than doubles to 0.7 watts. Multiply by 2.7, which the Royal Society suggests is the UN’s current factor for climate feedbacks, and you get 1.9 watts – more than six times the UN’s figure”

I don’t know, count the instances of gibberish in there I suppose. Monckton might have more factual mistakes, but so has the UN pame arctic council.
==============

Mockton he is using UN data which are – partly faulty or wanting . For instance, his table of greenhouse gases lacks water vapor, a gas that has 10 to 50times more greenhouse effect than CO2 (in terms of ratiation forcing).

Now the 0.3Wm^-2 data comes from UN climate council http://pame.arctic-council.org/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/245.htm . Quote: “…uncertainties in the assumptions made about the state of the Sun during that period could imply a range of between 1 and 15 Wm^-2 reduction in TSI less than present mean values although most estimates lie in the 3 to 5.5 Wm-2 range”

See the figure 6.5 which shows that solar forcing has changed about 3Wm^-2 since 1700. While the paragraph 6.11.1.2 ends with extimatie of 0.3wm^-1 and that is put into the picture 6.6 . So while their data have shown that less known solar forcing is likely dwarfing any greenhouse effects, their presention pictures show solar effects as likely insignificant .
=============

If you are serious about CO2-induced greenhouse effect, stop breathing out or start paing CO2 tax your for every exhalation.

Posted by: Petrus Vectorius | November 15, 2006 04:58 PM

Petrus, the error is yours. TSI (total solar irradiance) is not the same as solar forcing. Because the earth is not flat and not completely black, you have to divide TSI by 4 and multiply by the Earth’s albedo to get the solar forcing. They did not make a mistake here — you did.

Posted by: Tim Lambert | November 15, 2006 07:37 PM

Petrus I suggest you read a bit about carbon cycles and note the important difference between short and long term cycles on the climate.
Here is a could place to start
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/
PS I and my wife’s respiration are in balance with our garden. It is the rest of our lifestyle that the planet is having trouble with.
Posted by: Doug Clover | November 15, 2006 10:08 PM

And for some kind of trifecta Petrus – Tim didn’t write that, I did.
Posted by: frankis | November 16, 2006 01:26 AM

“But there are multiple independent pieces of evidence that the climate sensitivity (how much warming you get from doubling CO2) is 3 degrees. This doesn’t contradict Boltzmann’s law because the Earth is not a simple black body. Nor is a sensitivity of 3 degrees a new number produced by the IPCC in 2001 — it’s been the scientist’s best estimate for twenty years.”

“This doesn’t contradict Boltzmann’s law because the Earth is not a simple black body.”

What do you mean by this?

Earth is not a simple black body in what way?

Because it has oceans and an atmosphere?

Posted by: Catastrophic | November 18, 2006 04:55 PM

You say that there are multiple sources of evidence that doubling CO2 would lead to 3 degrees of warming. Well thats a good thing and something to be grateful for.
But I’m calling bullshit on that anyway.

BULLSHIT!

Lets here the evidence for that fella.

Posted by: Catastrophic | November 18, 2006 04:59 PM

Because nothing on the surface is perfectly absorbing.
Because IR active gases can only emit on specific molecular lines.
Because your understanding of science is perfectly catastrophic.
Your ignorance is your problem.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | November 18, 2006 06:21 PM

First study subject of choice, then take to podium to sermonize grateful masses catastrophic. Get it right!
Posted by: sneezy | November 18, 2006 07:01 PM

No you guys have messed up.
The law is still relevant when the body is not a perfect radiator with an e of 1. This law cannot be dismissed the way this thread has done.

And the writer shows no evidence for this idea that doubling the CO2 will increase the temperature by three degrees. For such an estimate to be made the Stefan-Boltzmann law would have to be used in some way or other.

The writer simply links to a blog where someone else is making that claim. Yet the person on that blog making the claim that doubling increases the temperature 3 degrees does not himself give any evidence. And does not say that Stefan Boltzmann is irrelevant to his calculations.

Monkton’s got it right. And you people are just ignoring the issue.
Posted by: Catastrophic | November 18, 2006 08:25 PM

Its notable that no-one was game to make a comeback on the issue I called bullshit on.
Thats a bit of a giveaway methinks. These strident comments on Stefan-Boltzmann. Or strident excuses more like it.

But where is the evidence that doubling CO2 will lead to 3 degrees warming?
I put it to you that none of you have any such evidence.

Posted by: Catastrophic | November 18, 2006 08:33 PM

“And Monckton has so little understanding of his subject matter that he doesn’t realize that his two major arguments (that the climate sensitivity is very low and that there was a large variation in temperatures over the past thousand years) contradict each other. If there was a big variation in temperature it implies a high sensitivity.”

I’m calling bullshit on this one too.

BULLSHIT!

Because this implies that the output of the sun is uniform. Now clearly Monkton doesn’t think this so he’s not contradicting himself.

Is it the view of the posters here that the suns output is uniform over time?

Is that your view sneezy?

You too Rabett.

Speak up.

Posted by: Catastrophic | November 18, 2006 08:58 PM

Back to that Stefan Boltzman thing. If albedo, and emmisivity are held invariant, then it would hold. The problem is that both are affected by tempurature changes. Higher temperatures mean less surface area of ice/snow, so albedo decreases. Higher temps also mean more water vapor (a very potent GHG), which effectively reduces emmisivity. The net result is the climate sensitivity is much greater simple minded use of the law would imply. Of course anyone who took Climate-101 would already know this!
Posted by: bigTom | November 18, 2006 11:13 PM

Tell you what bucko, take a look at the Earth’s emission seen from satellites which is not a S-B curve. If you want to see how it compares you can look at these modelled spectra. Pay particular attention on the right, where you can see the effect of the water vapor continuum absorption.
If you want more, here are a bunch of high resolution spectra from the AIRS instrument on EOS-Aqua.
Now, with that out of the way, let us move on to the climate sensitivity. There are two threads to this. The first is studies of past climate. You want to read about those go here and here is another and here is a whole damn book

Posted by: Eli Rabett | November 18, 2006 11:15 PM

Solar variability 0.1% over the past 20 years.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | November 18, 2006 11:25 PM

Eli, your AIRS link somehow acquired an erroneous ‘scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/11/’ prefix – maybe you forgot the ‘http://’ ? I think this is the right link.
Posted by: llewelly | November 18, 2006 11:50 PM

Right Big Tom. Well Monkton isn’t saying that the Earth is a perfect black body is he? Otherwise why would he have a range for Lambda of 0.22 to 0.3C per watt? Thats a pretty big range there. If he was misusing the law as you suggest then he could hit it much closer then that.

Right Rabbet. So solar variability is 0.1 over the past 20 years.

Of course that means that its also been 0.1 over the past 1400 years right Rabbet?

Zero points for logic champ.

Monktons logic holds up and the writers goes down like a Lead Zeppelyn.
Here is what the writer says again:

“And Monckton has so little understanding of his subject matter that he doesn’t realize that his two major arguments (that the climate sensitivity is very low and that there was a large variation in temperatures over the past thousand years) contradict each other. If there was a big variation in temperature it implies a high sensitivity.”

But it doesn’t imply this at all unless the Sun is uniform in its output. And its output is not uniform is it Rabbet.

So far Monkton is looking goog. And you guys not so good.

Furthermore the writer appears to be trying to eliminate the medieval warming period as well as the little ice age. He’s hinting at it at the very least.

Posted by: Catastrophic | November 18, 2006 11:53 PM

Now I notice that, despite this wild goose chase that Rabbet threw at me I’ve still not got the evidence that a doubling in CO2 would lead to a 3 degrees increase in temperature.

The lack of such evidence is getting to be a recurring theme.

Actually if you went with the Big Tom approach of only including positive feedbacks, then 3 degrees wouldn’t do it. The whole place would start spinning right out of control in an upward spiral to Venusian conditions.

Now its been a lot hotter then it has today. So why haven’t Toms positive feedbacks kicked in and destroyed everything already?

Posted by: Catastrophic | November 19, 2006 12:44 AM

Thank you llewely. As to cat, you get three whys. You got your answers. If you don’t understand them, that’s your problem. I provided you links that show the mean and range of the pdfs for climate variability.
If you want to find solar variability over longer periods (it is not very much, but we only have proxys) google it. Here is a hint, Judity Lean is a very good name to use.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | November 19, 2006 12:51 AM

What I got is an unwillingness by you guys to admit the writer has no basis for his super-confident claim that the temperture will increase three degrees when the CO2 is doubled.

Models that don’t backtest don’t work and aren’t evidence. The first link you gave me was only a simulation.

We need real evidence here.

And what is this unwillingness to share your knowledge oh high-priest?

You get three why’s hey?

How much are you getting off the taxpayer for such a niggardly attitude?

I can see I’ve caught you guys on a raw nerve here. Your analysis isn’t holding up.

Posted by: Catastrophic | November 19, 2006 01:14 AM

“If you want to find solar variability over longer periods (it is not very much, but we only have proxys) google it. Here is a hint, Judity Lean is a very good name to use.”

But thats not the point Rabbet. The point is that the writers claim is bogus. Here it is for the third time.

“And Monckton has so little understanding of his subject matter that he doesn’t realize that his two major arguments (that the climate sensitivity is very low and that there was a large variation in temperatures over the past thousand years) contradict each other. If there was a big variation in temperature it implies a high sensitivity.”

Now I don’t need to google Lean or anyone else to know this is bogus. Since the writer assumes that the sun is invariant which is not Monktons assumption.

You keep dodging this one Rabbet. Why not just admit that the logic behind this statement is totally flawed.
Wild goose changes just won’t do here.

Posted by: Catastrophic | November 19, 2006 01:18 AM

cat, pretending that the evidence does not exist does not make the evidence go away. I linked to a post by James Annan who desrcibed his recently accepted paper. If you want more details, he has a link to his paper. How about you read that and tell us what you think the referees missed?

I do not assume that the sun is invariant. Indeed, my statement would make no sense if the sun was invariant.

Posted by: Tim Lambert | November 19, 2006 01:34 AM

I didn’t pretend the evidence doesn’t exist. What I’m saying is if it exists you guys ought to be able to show it and not merely link to a blog wherein some other fellow is repeating your assertion.

No your statement makes no sense unless the sun is invariant. If the suns radiance oscillates a lot then what Monkton said is fine. And your criticism makes no sense.
It was as if you were saying that the CO2 drives the whole system.

Posted by: Catastrophic | November 19, 2006 02:23 AM

“I linked to a post by James Annan who desrcibed his recently accepted paper.”

Well isn’t that funny. Before you were claiming that this 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2 was a twenty year consensus. Now it appears you got it from a recent paper.

Why don’t you come up with the evidence in your own words instead of sending folks on wild goose chases?

This idea that I have to go to a single researcher and find where he got it wrong is a bit silly. I mean there are other guys out there who I could link who disagree. Then you’d be up in the air entirely. And you’d have to fall back on the standard abuse of anyone who disagrees.

So lets hear your evidence in your own words.

Posted by: Catastrophic | November 19, 2006 02:30 AM

Is it darwin by another name, or maybe an entrant in the Darwin Awards, or a different kind of comments critter entirely? “Monckton is looking goog” indeed but sorry, catass, I’m not interested in playing with you. This really isn’t a high enough profile place for you to publish your paradigm upsetting opinions, but there are plenty of journals for you or Monckton to tackle.

Posted by: sneezy | November 19, 2006 06:04 AM

Hey catastrophic- you do know the difference between evidence and opinion, don’t you? If I say that catastrophic must be inhabiting another planet, thats just my opinion. IF I can back it up with photos of them on Mars, thats evidence. So why do you want them to say things in their own words, when other people have already marshalled the evidence?

Heres something from 29 years ago about doubling of CO2; “1979 U.S. National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming.=>Models (GCMs” Now, you do understand that since that time the scientists have been busy reducing the error margin? Anyway, the known solar irradiance from the past 20 years, added to the modelling and data on warming show that the current warming is effectively man made.

Posted by: guthrie | November 19, 2006 06:08 AM

Catastrophic: “So far Monkton is looking goog.”
I couldn’t have phrased it better myself.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 19, 2006 07:48 AM

Catastrophic is a sock puppet of notorious troll Grame Bird. He’s not interested in discussion, he just wants to annoy people. Please ignore him.

Posted by: Tim Lambert | November 19, 2006 07:58 AM

To expand on Guthrie’s point:

“Arrhenius made a calculation [1n 1896] for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth’s temperature some 5-6°C.(3)”
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Posted by: Ian Gould | November 19, 2006 08:02 AM

“Can anyone comment on Monckton’s statements that the historical record over several 100,000 years shows that warming preceeds CO2 increase by several 100 or a few 1000 years? “If this were true then an interpretation would be that warming releases sequestered CO2.”

Positive feedback, In no way counters the fact that CO2 absorbs near IR. Similarly, the carbonaceous materials of which a house are built, if monitored over thousands of years, will be seen to slowly oxidize and produce heat; but that in no way counters the hypothesis that if the result of human activity were to heat some portion of them up very rapidly with nothing more than an itty bitty match, which is just an infinitesimal amount of oxiding carbon compared to the total in the house, nevertheless the house would then begin to oxidize very rapidly and get into a positive feedback loop known as “your house is on fire”.

Posted by: z | November 19, 2006 12:22 PM

Nuts, I forgot the attribution for the quote I used- it was from SPencer Wearts book: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Anyway, looks like my opinion was right after all…

Posted by: guthrie | November 19, 2006 05:22 PM

wrt the Stefan-Boltmann law, and its abuse by Monckton:
The S-B law relates total thermal radiation, integrated over all wavelengths, to the temperature of the body.

There is a relevant parameter: epsilon, which is the ratio of absorbed to incident radiant power. Generally speaking (i.e., in any normal situation), epsilon is a function of frequency. In the case that epsilon = 1 independently of frequency (body absorbs all light that falls upon it), you have a blackbody; or if epsilon = a constant less than 1, independently of frequency, you have a gray-body.

The S-B law ONLY applies for gray- or blackbodies, when epsilon has no dependence on temperature. Otherwise, you can’t even define the value of epsilon to be used in that equation. Which of the infinite number of values do you choose?

In the case of the earth’s atmosphere, we don’t have a blackbody or a graybody. Proof? Take one earth atmosphere, shine visible light on it. It absorbs almost nothing. Now change the frequency: shine infrared radiation, within the absorption bands: it absorbs all of it. Therefore, in one part of the frequency range, epsilon = 0; in another, epsilon = 1. Epsilon is NOT CONSTANT, and the Stefan-Boltmann law cannot be applied to it.

In particular, there is no way to calculate an “epsilon” that would fit the formula, except to use the formula to define an “epsilon”: it would be defined as “epsilon” = (total radiated power per unit area)/(sigmaT*4) Of course, using this equation as a definition for one of its terms removes its utility in relating anything to anything else.

Monckton has ungraciously tipped his hand that he realizes he’s all wet on this: i) In his first newspaper article, he proclaimed that the IPCC had ignored the S-B theorem; ii) In his second newspaper article, he stated “They said I’d assumed the system to be a blackbody. I didn’t.”; iii) In the third article (a rejoinder to a critique in a different paper, The Guardian), he said “I didn’t assume it’s a blackbody. It’s a badly-behaved graybody.”

My understanding of that is that “badly behaved graybody” means “damn it, it’s not a graybody at all, but I’m not going to admit I didn’t know what I was talking about.”

I am still studying the remainder of what he does in that section of his backgrounder, to see what other whoppers he’s pulling. I expect that there will be quite a few.

Posted by: Neal J. King | November 19, 2006 06:25 PM

“Heres something from 29 years ago about doubling of CO2; “1979 U.S. National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming.=>Models (GCMs” Now, you do understand that since that time the scientists have been busy reducing the error margin?”

Thats not evidence so much as an assertion. You can’t refine something thats flawed from the start. Just like you can’t polish a turd.

But can you guys tell me this?

What is the standardised way to come up with a watts per metre squared figure for a doubling of CO2 in the first place? What is the way thats usually done?

You have that assumption in place and then you seek out the LAMBDA right?

Or at least thats what I’ve seen so far.

Since when I’ve tried to look at it the wattage per metre squared side of things has simply been assumed.
Lets hear it.

Go!!

Posted by: akachaos | November 20, 2006 01:24 AM

Terrific explanation Mr King.

But tell me something.

Aren’t more, shall we say, INSIDER-calculations likewise made difficult, by the variability of the earth?

Getting a good figure for epsilon in the Stefan-Boltmann way of thinking might be so fraught as to place the whole idea of it in the too-hard-basket.

So it would seem by your very convincing explanation.
But what about the more mundane calculations?

What about your starting wattage-per-metre-squared assumption when it comes to your first stage of estimating the effect of a doubling of CO2?

Is not THIS calculation ever-so-buggered by the self-same variability of the planet earth that you so cogently showed us invalidated a simplistic application of Stefan-Boltmann law?

Actually I’m pleasantly surprised. You guys are being quite helpful.

Posted by: akachaos | November 20, 2006 01:40 AM

has the correlation between CO2 and temperature been fully researched…

the latest info i had was that the temp increases precede the CO2 rises…

so my current understanding is the temp warms (probably for solar cycle reasons) and then because of this warmer temperature biomass for example increases and more CO2 is produced…

further, what is the actual temp sensitivity of CO2 concentration. has anyone put a couple of greenhouses out, one with 280ppm CO2 and the other with 320ppm CO2 and looked at the temp difference…

would be interested in these papers, tim if you know of them…

Posted by: c8to | November 20, 2006 02:03 AM

“”Monckton is looking goog” indeed but sorry, catass, I’m not interested in playing with you. This really isn’t a high enough profile place for you to publish your paradigm upsetting opinions, but there are plenty of journals for you or Monckton to tackle.

Oh speedy. How touching.

Did you think you were considered in the first place?

You a bully-boy-hanger-on.

No no no no no. I wanted to talk to someone intelligent.

Not someone who takes THIS attitude:

“but there are plenty of journals for you or Monckton to tackle.”

No science around here buddy. You just take that science-talk outside fella.

Thats your attitude speedy.

You were never up to be talking to me.

Posted by: akachaos | November 20, 2006 02:30 AM

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: