"Humans may have prevented super ice age"

[Alexandre]

"Humans may have prevented super ice age" is the title of an article
from New Scientist. According to this article, some researchers argue
that "(b)efore we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-
permanent ice age". Our CO2 emissions may have preventeda long lasting
ice age. The article states that "none of the researchers contacted by
New Scientist thought the model's predictions are worth taking
seriously". However, the idea that something like this might have
happened is interesting.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html
Alexandre Couto de Andrade

[Eric Swanson]

Also note the comment in the article:

"In the model runs best resembling actual climate history, the switch
to a long-lasting ice age happened as early as 10,000 to 100,000 years
from now. However, Crowley stresses that not too much confidence can
be placed on the results of single runs out of many."

The CO2 which is now being dumped into the atmosphere would likely be
taken up by the oceans long before the 10,000 year beginning of this
postulated next ice age. As things are going, most of the fossil
fuels will be burnt before the end of this century.

I'm sorry to say, I think there's still a lot to learn about climate.
And, the focus should really be on the next couple of centuries, not
10,000 year runs with a simplified model.

E. S.
-------------------

[William Connolley]

"10,000 to 100,000 years" is an awfully big range. I thought the answer was 50kyr, which happens to be in the middle of the range, so I'm not sure if there is anything very new here. Anyone actually read the paper? -W

[James Annan]

William Connolley wrote:
> "10,000 to 100,000 years" is an awfully big range. I thought the answer
> was 50kyr, which happens to be in the middle of the range, so I'm not
> sure if there is anything very new here. Anyone actually read the paper? -W

Yes, I have glanced at it and it is quite interesting, the main result
as I see it isn't so much the time scale of the next ice age as the
mechanism/analysis of increasing oscillations as we approach a
bifurcation point.

In response to Eric, while I agree that predictions over 10,000 years
are not in themselves useful, understanding what drives climate change
on all time scales is.

James

[Jason Patton]

I can't find the exact reason why the range is large. I'm guessing it
just has to do with a general idea of the model's precision or the
range given by the different runs besides "best-fit" that they did.
Could even just be eye-balled. Here's all they really have about it
in the text:

"For the best-fit run, transition to the large Eurasian ice sheet
occurs shortly after the present (Fig. 5a). Our results therefore
suggest that the actual climate system may have been geologically
close (10^4–10^5 yr) to the final phase of a 50-Myr evolution from
bipolar warm climates to permanent bipolar glaciation."

Fig 5a shows the modeled sea-level given by the model for millions of
years in the past and in the future, with an abrupt change happening
not too long in the future on the timescale involved.

Jason

[Jason Patton]

Eric, I don't disagree that we as a whole should be focused on current
issues in climate, but running EBMs over long periods appears to be
what these particular scientists do. I don't know if we should get up
in arms over their work. We cannot expect every scientist to be
working on the same issue, as important as it is.

I think what they've done is a valuable exercise, with the caveats
they've taken care to point out. The actual letter to be published in
Nature actually has some nice details. But, even though as press such
as New Scientist has to find some way to spice it up (see: title),
this isn't something we need to worry about right now, though it is a
neat study.

Jason Patton

[Alastair]

> >>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented...
> >> Alexandre Couto de Andrade- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have put off posting on this subject until I had read the paper, but
having done that my opinions have not changed.

Their idea is not entirely new since both Budyko and Sellers used EBMs
to investigate the ice albedo effect on glaciations. But as I
understand it, Budyko's problem was why the glaciations stopped, and a
Snowball Earth did not happen. In other words, his EBM led to a
permanent ice age too, and the question is why it has not happened.
Crowley & Hyde cite Budyko. They should have known that. So Budyko,
Sellers, and, I am sure, I too could write a model that switched into
a permanent ice age.

My second point is that this hypotheis is not scientific. It cannot be
falsified. We cannot undo the damage we have done to the atmosphere
and see whether we do end up in a permanent ice age.

OTOH, Eric make a very valid point when he writes that the fossil fuel
will all be completed by the end of this century. Compare that with
the conclusion of Crowley & Hyde;

"Our results therefore suggest that the actualclimate system may have
been geologically close ... to permanent bipolar glaciation.
(Presumably, future society could prevent this transition indefinitely
with very modest adjustments to the atmospheric CO2 levels.)"

It seems unlikely that this is now true. Where do we get the fossil
fuels to burn, or the energy, to create CO2 now that we have reached
Peak Oil and the global leaders, such as Gordon Brown, seem determined
to maintain this profligracy in order to retain their hold on power.

Carl Wunch seems to agree with me that this is not science
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/more-on-whether-a-big-chill-is-nigh/

Cheers, Alastair.

[Tom Adams]

It's a counterfactual conditional. It can be falsified, just not with
the particular experiment you define.

I have seen Newton's First Law described as a conterfactual
conditional. Hard or impossible to create the conditions for a direct
empirical confirmation of that one too.

> We cannot undo the damage we have done to the atmosphere
> and see whether we do end up in a permanent ice age.
>
> OTOH, Eric make a very valid point when he writes that the fossil fuel
> will all be completed by the end of this century. Compare that with
> the conclusion of Crowley & Hyde;
>
> "Our results therefore suggest that the actualclimate system may have
> been geologically close ...  to permanent bipolar glaciation.
> (Presumably, future society could prevent this transition indefinitely
> with very modest adjustments to the atmospheric CO2 levels.)"
>
> It seems unlikely that this is now true.  Where do we get the fossil
> fuels to burn, or the energy, to create CO2 now that we have reached
> Peak Oil and the global leaders, such as Gordon Brown, seem determined
> to maintain this profligracy in order to retain their hold on power.
>

> Carl Wunch seems to agree with me that this is not sciencehttp://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/more-on-whether-a-big-ch...
>
> Cheers, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -

[crandles]

> It seems unlikely that this is now true.  Where do we get the fossil
> fuels to burn, or the energy, to create CO2 now that we have reached
> Peak Oil and the global leaders, such as Gordon Brown, seem determined
> to maintain this profligracy in order to retain their hold on power.

Just how much energy would it take to send submarines to stir up the
ocean floor in places where it is suspected that there could be
methane hydrates sufficiently close to being unstable? I wouldn't
think it would require vast unfindable amounts of energy.

[Alastair]

AFAIK Newton's first law has been proved to hold in molecular
collisions with photons. It is a physical impossibility to prove that
if we had not added CO2 to the atmosphere we would have entered an ice
age (paraphrasing) because we have added the CO2. There is a
fundamental difference between Newtonian physics which can be proved
in a laboratory, and earth science which excludes experiments which
can be performed in a timely manner.

Because of that we rely on computer models, but a computer simulation
is not proof, and as Wunsch points out toy models are not science.

But the real question is why has this piece of what Wunsch calls
science fiction caught the public's attention. The answer is that it
assuages their guilt over what they have done to the climate by
driving their Hummers. They can claim that even if the destruction of
New Orleans (and the fires now raging in California) were caused by
climate change, it would have been much worse if we had not burnt all
those fossil fuels.

What is inconsistent however is that while they are willing to accept
that we may have avoided catastrophe, they are not willing to accept
that we may be heading for catastrophe. I call this attitude
denialism. And it is not just confined to the general public. Most
scientists seem to have the same attitude, some of them posting on
this newsgroup. Despite overwhelming evidence that both the Arctic sea
ice and the Greenland ice sheet are doomed, even if we do take action,
they still seem to believe, like Mr Micawber that something will turn
up.

Obama may change US policy, but it is now too late :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

[hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk]

> The CO2 which is now being dumped into the atmosphere would likely be
> taken up by the oceans long before the 10,000 year beginning of this
> postulated next ice age.

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf

They make estimates of how much co2 will remain in the atmosphere:
10-15% after 10 kyears
7% after 100 kyears

and state that this will have an impact on climate even then. Their
comparison with nuclear waste suggests that they are not talking about
the need to emit Co2 as an insurance policy against a permanent ice
age, which at a 0 discount rate should matter more than any suffering
of a few generations in the next few hundred years ;-)

[Tom Adams]

The hypothesis will be used by deniers, and all that.

I'm just saying that counterfactual conditionals are not unscientific.

Consider this one: If a 1/4 mile wide meteor hit NYC yesterday, it
would have killed >10,000.

[Alastair]

I am not arguing that it is untrue that we would have entered an ice
age if we had not added CO2 tot he atmosphere. What I am saying is
that it does not meet Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability for
scientific theories.

On those grounds, your example of a meteor hitting NYC is scientific
because we could wait for a meteor to hit NYC and see if more than
10,000 people were killed. (In fact it is probable that by the time of
the impact NYC would no longer he habitated due to sea level rise.
But \I digress :-)

OTOH, we cannot turn the clock back, not burn all those fossil fuels,
then wait and see if or if not an ice age happens. Of course you could
slightly alter the hypothesis and say that if we removed all the extra
CO2 from the atmosphere then we would return to an ice age, and that
would be falsifiable, if you believe that we could remove the CO2. But
of course that is not practical ... and so we resort to climate
models.

But then this all depends on whether you accept Karl Popper's ideas.
Judging by Dr Crowley's response to Dr Wunsch at,
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/more-on-whether-a-big-chill-is-nigh/
Crowley does not.

But climate models are not true experiments, in the sense of that
pioneered by Galileo when he dropped the balls from the leaning Tower
of Pisa. Computer models are no better than elaborate mind
experiments. They still have to be validated by experiences. And
Crowley's model will never be validated by the experience of a return
to an ice age.

Anyway, if it is not science why am I wasting my time arguing about
it?

Cheers, Alastair.

[Alastair]

> Judging by Dr Crowley's response to Dr Wunsch at,http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/more-on-whether-a-big-ch...

> Crowley does not.
>
> But climate models are not true experiments, in the sense of that
> pioneered by Galileo when he dropped the balls from the leaning Tower
> of Pisa. Computer models are no better than elaborate mind
> experiments. They still have to be validated by experiences.  And
> Crowley's model will never be validated by the experience of a return
> to an ice age.
>
> Anyway, if it is not science why am I wasting my time arguing about
> it?
>
> Cheers, Alastair.

The answer to that rhetorical question is that by arguing about these
matters, I do learn from the research that is necessary. Karl
Popper's ideas on "Falsifiability" are summarised here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificationism
where it states "Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl
Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is
scientific only if it is falsifiable."

Cheers, Alastair.

[M.Blackmore]

On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 11:04 -0800, Alexandre wrote:
> However, the idea that something like this might have
> happened is interesting.

The next reason why carbon deniers will find for doing nothing - just
keep on burning the coal when the oil and gas runs out, eh.

[Tom Adams]

Popper seems to have discoved a way to turn scientists brains to
mush. In my experience, you are not the first to suffer this fate.

Observe that you have just gone from saying that the hypothesis in
question it unfalsifiable, to saying that it is indeed falsifiable,
just not practical to falsify. Collect your brains and consider that
contradiction.

>
> But then this all depends on whether you accept Karl Popper's ideas.

> Judging by Dr Crowley's response to Dr Wunsch at,http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/more-on-whether-a-big-ch...

> Crowley does not.
>
> But climate models are not true experiments, in the sense of that
> pioneered by Galileo when he dropped the balls from the leaning Tower
> of Pisa. Computer models are no better than elaborate mind
> experiments. They still have to be validated by experiences.  And
> Crowley's model will never be validated by the experience of a return
> to an ice age.
>
> Anyway, if it is not science why am I wasting my time arguing about
> it?
>

[Alastair]

I am saying if you change the hypothesis, then you could perform a
test if you could remove all the anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere
and the ocean. It's a bit like saying that if we had some ham we
could have ham and eggs for breakfast, if we had some eggs!

But I think on this issue everyone is has a right to their own
opinion. Obviously the editors of Nature agree with you :-(

BTW that Sarah Palin is a great gal! She got Tamino to vote for Barack
Obama and give the world some hope :-) http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/yes-we-can/

Cheers, Alastair.

[James Annan]

Alastair wrote:
>
> The answer to that rhetorical question is that by arguing about these
> matters, I do learn from the research that is necessary. Karl
> Popper's ideas on "Falsifiability" are summarised here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificationism
> where it states "Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl
> Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is
> scientific only if it is falsifiable."

Alastair,

I think you (and many others, perhaps including Popper) are rather too
literal on this. Many statements and predictions arising from the
scientific process are unfalsifiable, even if there really is some valid
scientific truth underlying them. One favourite example of mine is a
weather forecast of the form "70% probability of rain tomorrow". Is it
intrinsically unscientific to make such a forecast, since no event
(rain/no rain) will falsify it? Note further that if someone else says
"50% probability of rain tomorrow" then NEITHER of these predictions is
falsifiable and indeed both forecasts might well arise from reliable and
well-calibrated prediction systems.

Going back to the paper in question, although a specific claim about
what might have happened in the event of some different
historical/current conditions is indeed itself strictly unfalsifiable,
really what is being proposed is a hypothesis about the Earth's
behaviour that may be supported or contradicted by all sorts of
plausible analyses and observations in the future. Thus, it is entirely
scientific in nature.

At least, that is how I imagine most scientists would view the situation
were they to think about it carefully (which some may not have done).

James

[Alastair]

I have thought for a long time that forecasts of 50% rain were
rubbish, no matter how complicated the calculations. Weather is
chaotic so it cannot be precisely calculated. But the whole matter is
more complicated than that.

Returning to the paper, if it was using a verified method (model) to
do the predictions then it could be given some credence. But at
present the climate models are unproven, and in fact can neither
reproduce the previous glaciation nor the the abrupt changes which
happened at the end of that glaciation. Crowley and Hyde claim that
their model was used to simulate Snowball Earth, but I doubt that it
exited Snowball Earth without their using a forcing of unbelievable
quantities of CO2. What I fear is that this experiment will be held
up as yet another success for the climate models when in fact it is
just a toy model suitably parametrised to give the result the authors
wanted.

The problem is that most scientists are not thinking carefully about
why the models fail. They are assuming that because the models
predict global warming and that global warming is happening then the
models are correct. But if you think carefully that does not follow.
The models could be (and are wrong i.e. wrt the melt of Arctic sea
ice) and global warming would still be happening.

Crowley and Hyde's paper may be interesting but it is just science
fiction.

Cheers, Alastair.

[James Annan]

On Nov 19, 4:20 am, Alastair <a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> I have thought for a long time that forecasts of 50% rain were
> rubbish, no matter how complicated the calculations.  Weather is
> chaotic so it cannot be precisely calculated. But the whole matter is
> more complicated than that.

I think you would be hard pressed to construct a prediction of an
observation that did not admit to any uncertainty whatsoever. And that
is the case irrespective of chaos.

> The problem is that most scientists are not thinking carefully about
> why the models fail.  They are assuming that because the models
> predict global warming  and that global warming is happening then the
> models are correct. But if you think carefully that does not follow.

I have a sneaking suspicion that at least some scientists may have
considered the possibility :-)

James

[Alastair]

> Crowley and Hyde's paper may be interesting but it is just science
> fiction.
>
> Cheers, Alastair.

On Nov 22, 12:11 pm, Dan <dan.ort...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The problem is that most scientists are not thinking carefully about
> > why the models fail. They are assuming that because the models
> > predict global warming and that global warming is happening then the
> > models are correct. But if you think carefully that does not follow.
>

> What?!? That is why scientists use models, in most cases. To learn
> from where they fail.
>
> Sheesh.
>
> Yes, someone has not been thinking carefully about this...
>

You've been doing too much thinking and not enough looking at the
facts.

Scientists don't use models to find out where they go wrong. They use
models because they can't use the real world. Of course they should
be looking at why the models fail, but in the case of the MSU and
radiosonde lapse rate results, they have spent twenty years trying to
prove the data wrong in order to show that their models are correct!

I agree with you. That is the way scientists should behave, by
checking their models against the facts. But Crowley and Hyde is an
excellent example of where the scientists are not behaving as you
advocate, and that is why their paper is not science.

Cheers, Alastair.

[William Connolley]

2008/11/25 Alastair <a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk>:

> Scientists don't use models to find out where they go wrong. They use
> models because they can't use the real world. Of course they should
> be looking at why the models fail, but in the case of the MSU and
> radiosonde lapse rate results, they have spent twenty years trying to
> prove the data wrong in order to show that their models are correct!

You're missing a teensy little point here: the S+C MSU *was* wrong, in
multiple ways. As were the lapse rates.

The models were right.

-W.

--
William M. Connolley | www.wmconnolley.org.uk | 07985 935400

[Alastair]

> You're missing a teensy little point here: the S+C MSU *was* wrong, in
> multiple ways. As were the lapse rates.

S+C had made a teensy little error with the MSU. So Gavin and crew
used that as an excuse not only to fix the MSU data, but they also
revised the radiosonde data.

But that wasn't really satisfactory so they have now published another
paper where they have averaged the their MSU data with their
radiosonde data and got the result they want, approximately. Of
course this means that both their MSU and radiosonde fixes are giving
the wrong results!

Cheers, Alastair.

[Eric Swanson]

But, Alastair, as you may recall, the S & C work with the MSU data was
shown to be in error several times over. And, IMHO, the S & C MSU/
AMSU results are STILL WRONG! You may not be aware of it, but the UAH
TLT includes coverage from locations over the Antarctic, which is well
known to include a rather large component of surface effects. The
team at RSS decided to exclude data poleward of 70S, as well as
locations with high mountains. The RSS TLT trend has shown a greater
warming trend, up until a year or so ago. The RSS team did not
include the AMSU data (although they may now), whereas S & C do.

These discussions have been going on for more than a decade and you
apparently think the S & C TLT results are superior to the other data
sources. Perhaps you, like John Christy, simply want to wave a magic
hand over the data and simply assert the UAH product to be the best,
as he and Douglass did in their new E & E paper. But, did it ever
occur to you that the UAH TLT is the result of modeling, starting with
the derivation of their original algorithm? The recent UAH TLT
includes the AMSU data by modeling the MSU algorithm. Aren't we
simply going around and round arguing over which model is best? If
one looks at the error bars, these data tend to be in general
agreement, last I heard...

E. S.
---

[Raymond Arritt]

Eric Swanson wrote:
>
> But, did it ever
> occur to you that the UAH TLT is the result of modeling, starting with
> the derivation of their original algorithm?

Thanks Eric, this is an important and oft-overlooked point.

Satellites DO NOT measure temperature.

--
Raymond W. Arritt tel +1-515-294-9870
Professor, Department of Agronomy fax +1-515-294-2619
3010 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011 USA
http://mesoscale.agron.iastate.edu/arritt2.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
-- Henry Kissinger

[Alastair]

Eric and Raymond,

The thrust of my argument is not that the MSU results were or are
correct. It is that the climate models are wrong. But I do argue that
the radiosondes are correct. No models were used to get their
readings.

I should add here that it is the radiation scheme where the fault
lies, but it has severe consequences for the whole global warming
paradigm. At present it is based on the TOA balance being achieved by
the OLR adjusting. The OLR is pretty well saturated and cannot
change. The system is balanced at the TOA by changes in albedo which
alters the net ISR. This is a simple idea, but has not really been
considered because it was thought that the current paradigm worked.
It does not, but like all paradigms it is being stoutly defended by
its current practitioners.

This means that global warming does not operate by more CO2 increasing
back radiation. It happens because the terrestrial radiation is
absorbed by the CO2 closer to the surface. There is no increase in the
energy absorbed, but it drives the snow line to higher altitudes and
latitudes. It is this consequent change in albedo that causes the
planet to warm.

But no-one will even consider whether I could be correct, so it is
pointless expanding on my ideas further here, or even in trying to get
a paper published.

Cheers, Alastair.

[William Connolley]

2008/11/25 Alastair <a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk>:

>> You're missing a teensy little point here: the S+C MSU *was* wrong, in
>> multiple ways. As were the lapse rates.
>
> S+C had made a teensy little error with the MSU. So Gavin and crew
> used that as an excuse not only to fix the MSU data, but they also
> revised the radiosonde data.

No, S+C made some very big errors with MSU. Gavin didn't fix the RS.
You're descending into conspiracy theory here; stop before its too
late

-W.

> But that wasn't really satisfactory so they have now published another
> paper where they have averaged the their MSU data with their
> radiosonde data and got the result they want, approximately. Of
> course this means that both their MSU and radiosonde fixes are giving
> the wrong results!
>
> Cheers, Alastair.
>
>
> >
>

[Alastair]

> No, S+C made some very big errors with MSU. Gavin didn't fix the RS.
> You're descending into conspiracy theory here; stop before its too
> late

It was claimed in one of a trio of papers to Science that there were
large errors in S&C's MSU results but Christy would only accept one -
a small one. S&C know most about the MSUs so I am giving them the
benefit of the doubt. Gavin's name appears on one of those papers -
the one with 20 authors, as it does in a more recent paper with 17
authors. See
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/tropical-tropopshere-iii

(What is your collective noun for a group of scientists who round on
their colleagues, trying to defeat scientific arguments by weight of
numbers, if not "crew". Gang perhaps :-?)

The point is that Gavin and his crew still cannot land the knockout
blow - because they are wrong. The upper troposphere will not warm to
the extent the models predict because they are based on radiative
forcing, and that is not the way greenhouse effect works. Horace-
Benedict de Saussure said as much in his letter to the Journal de
Paris 17th April 1784:

"One could imagine some complicated system of reflections maybe and of
repeated radiations, that multiply the effect of the solar rays
endlessly; but I utterly rejected that idea when it presented itself
to my mind, because the immortal Newton proved that bodies are warmed
by the light that they absorb, and not by that which they transmit or
that they reflect."

Enough, I must get back to translating de Saussure.

Cheers, Alastair.

[Eric Swanson]

On Nov 26, 10:20 am, Alastair <a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > No, S+C made some very big errors with MSU. Gavin didn't fix the RS.
> > You're descending into conspiracy theory here; stop before its too
> > late
>
> It was claimed in one of a trio of papers to Science that there were
> large errors in S&C's MSU results but Christy would only accept one -
> a small one. S&C know most about the MSUs so I am giving them the
> benefit of the doubt.

Problems with the MSU derived UAH TLT were noted some time before the
papers in SCIENCE. The simple fact is that S & C have repeatedly
claimed that their product was without flaw for more than 15 years,
claims which have been shown to be incorrect. It would seem that you
want to believe the S & C results, without any comment to refute the
claims by others that there were errors. Sorry, that's not what is
called science. Take a look at what Mears and Wentz at RSS do to
produce their MSU analysis. I appreciate their providing this much
detail:

http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/support/Mears_and_Wentz_TLT_submitted.pdf

> The point is that Gavin and his crew still cannot land the knockout
> blow - because they are wrong. The upper troposphere will not warm to
> the extent the models predict because they are based on radiative
> forcing, and that is not the way greenhouse effect works.

The fact that changes in atmospheric transmission within the CO2 bands
have been measured as CO2 has increased wouldn't faze you at all, I
suppose.

>Horace-> Benedict de Saussure said as much in his letter to the Journal
>de Paris 17th April 1784:
>
> "One could imagine some complicated system of reflections maybe and of
> repeated radiations, that multiply the effect of the solar rays
> endlessly; but I utterly rejected that idea when it presented itself
> to my mind, because the immortal Newton proved that bodies are warmed
> by the light that they absorb, and not by that which they transmit or
> that they reflect."

Which says next to nothing about the absorption/emission of energy by
gases. Gases are not solid bodies. They do not follow the same
physics of black body thermal emissions.

> Enough, I must get back to translating de Saussure.

Perhaps your time might be better spent working with some older texts
where the only test of veracity is belief. The Bible or the Koran
come to mind. I saw a recent story suggesting that the Koran doesn't
give a true story of Mohammad. Now there's a challenge for you.
Watch your back...

E. S.
---

[Alastair]

> Problems with the MSU derived UAH TLT were noted some time before the
> papers in SCIENCE.  

Not as far as I know. S&C claimed that their results showed that
global warming was not happening. It did not. It only showed that the
models were wrong. I made the same mistake as everyone else and
thought that S&C were a couple of charlatans. But when I realised that
their results agreed with what I was finding I realised my mistake.

> The simple fact is that S & C have repeatedly
> claimed that their product was without flaw for more than 15 years,
> claims which have been shown to be incorrect.  

Of course they said their product had no flaws. They did not know of
any until M&W pointed them out at the end of those 15 years.

> It would seem that you
> want to believe the S & C results, without any comment to refute the
> claims by others that there were errors.  Sorry, that's not what is
> called science.  Take a look at what Mears and Wentz at RSS do to
> produce their MSU analysis.  I appreciate their providing this much
> detail:
>
> http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/support/Mears_and_Wentz_TLT_submitted.pdf

S&C provided M&W with details of all their methods. Why don't you
appreciate the worlk od S&C? Can't you see that you are only
supporting M&W because they are telling you what you want to hear?

> The fact that changes in atmospheric transmission within the CO2 bands
> have been measured as CO2 has increased wouldn't faze you at all, I
> suppose.

If it was greater than what I expect then it certainly would. There
will be a small increase in global warming due to bandwidth
broadening, but since the main CO2 band is saturated the effect will
be small. But if you have details I would be very interested to see
them.

> >Horace-> Benedict de Saussure said as much in his letter to the Journal
> >de Paris 17th April 1784:
>
> > "One could imagine some complicated system of reflections maybe and of
> > repeated radiations, that multiply the effect of the solar rays
> > endlessly; but I utterly rejected that idea when it presented itself
> > to my mind, because the immortal Newton proved that bodies are warmed
> > by the light that they absorb, and not by that which they transmit or
> > that they reflect."
>
> Which says next to nothing about the absorption/emission of energy by
> gases.  Gases are not solid bodies.  They do not follow the same
> physics of black body thermal emissions.

De Saussure was writing about the greenhouse effect, which he
discovered 40 years before Fourier's paper where he reported de
Saussure's work.

> > Enough, I must get back to translating de Saussure.
>
> Perhaps your time might be better spent working with some older texts
> where the only test of veracity is belief.  The Bible or the Koran
> come to mind.  I saw a recent story suggesting that the Koran doesn't
> give a true story of Mohammad.  Now there's a challenge for you.
> Watch your back...

William accuses me of being a conspiracy theorist and you want me to
mix it with Islamic extremists. I better had watch my back :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

[Eric Swanson]

On Nov 26, 3:11 pm, Alastair <a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > Problems with the MSU derived UAH TLT were noted some time before the
> > papers in SCIENCE.
>
> Not as far as I know. S&C claimed that their results showed that
> global warming was not happening. It did not. It only showed that the
> models were wrong. I made the same mistake as everyone else and
> thought that S&C were a couple of charlatans. But when I realised that
> their results agreed with what I was finding I realised my mistake.
>
> > The simple fact is that S & C have repeatedly
> > claimed that their product was without flaw for more than 15 years,
> > claims which have been shown to be incorrect.
>
> Of course they said their product had no flaws. They did not know of
> any until M&W pointed them out at the end of those 15 years.
>
> > It would seem that you
> > want to believe the S & C results, without any comment to refute the
> > claims by others that there were errors. Sorry, that's not what is
> > called science. Take a look at what Mears and Wentz at RSS do to
> > produce their MSU analysis. I appreciate their providing this much
> > detail:
>
> >http://www.ssmi.com/data/msu/support/Mears_and_Wentz_TLT_submitted.pdf
>
> S&C provided M&W with details of all their methods. Why don't you
> appreciate the worlk od S&C? Can't you see that you are only
> supporting M&W because they are telling you what you want to hear?

Having analyzed some of the S & C TLT data a while back, I do think my
complaints about their work is based on more than some choice based on
results. There are still problems with the S & C analysis, which I
have presented as part of the CCSP process. I also wrote an
unpublished critique.

> > The fact that changes in atmospheric transmission within the CO2 bands
> > have been measured as CO2 has increased wouldn't faze you at all, I
> > suppose.
>
> If it was greater than what I expect then it certainly would. There
> will be a small increase in global warming due to bandwidth
> broadening, but since the main CO2 band is saturated the effect will
> be small. But if you have details I would be very interested to see
> them.

What do you think about the Spencer Weart's AIP writeup? You will
note that the analysis didn't become firm until after WW II (down the
page, ref26 or so).

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The data I've seen was in an unpublished report. Your comment about
pressure broadening refers to near surface physics. The real issue is
what happens in the stratosphere where there's little water vapor and
the CO2 lines are not saturated, AIUI.

> > >Horace-> Benedict de Saussure said as much in his letter to the Journal
> > >de Paris 17th April 1784:
>
> > > "One could imagine some complicated system of reflections maybe and of
> > > repeated radiations, that multiply the effect of the solar rays
> > > endlessly; but I utterly rejected that idea when it presented itself
> > > to my mind, because the immortal Newton proved that bodies are warmed
> > > by the light that they absorb, and not by that which they transmit or
> > > that they reflect."
>
> > Which says next to nothing about the absorption/emission of energy by
> > gases. Gases are not solid bodies. They do not follow the same
> > physics of black body thermal emissions.
>
> De Saussure was writing about the greenhouse effect, which he
> discovered 40 years before Fourier's paper where he reported de
> Saussure's work.

It took another 250 years to get to the level of understanding needed
to quantify the radiative physics of gases. See the reference above.

E. S.
---

[Alastair]

> Having analyzed some of the S & C TLT data a while back, I do think my
> complaints about their work is based on more than some choice based on
> results.  There are still problems with the S & C analysis, which I
> have presented as part of the CCSP process.  I also wrote an
> unpublished critique.

David Benson wrote in the other thread "All models are wrong. Some
are useful." and you pointed out that "the UAH TLT is the result of
modelling, starting with the derivation of their original
algorithm?" So I see S&C work as a useful model since it first
raised the alarm that the climate models were seriously flawed. The
radiosondes show that.

> What do you think about the  Spencer Weart's AIP writeup?  You will
> note that the analysis didn't become firm until after WW II (down the
> page, ref26 or so).
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I (and Newton) say that warming is caused by absorption. After WWII
they found that the lines were narrower at high altitude, but the
radiation has all been absorbed well before it reaches that height.
In fact it is nearly all absorbed in the first 30m. John Tyndall
reckoned that 10% was absorbed in the within the first 6 feet.

> The data I've seen was in an unpublished report.  Your comment about
> pressure broadening refers to near surface physics.  The real issue is
> what happens in the stratosphere where there's little water vapor and
> the CO2 lines are not saturated, AIUI.

There are two things happening. There is the greenhouse warming at
the surface of the atmosphere, and there is OLR at the top of the
atmosphere. The OLR has to balance the ISR but it cannot change
because it is coming from the mesosphere which does not respond to the
surface temperature. (I am leaving a lot out, but you should be able
to see the picture.)

> It took another 250 years to get to the level of understanding needed
> to quantify the radiative physics of gases.  See the reference above.

That is correct. The greenhouse effect was only explained fully, as
caused by the vibration of molecules, in the 1920s, but the basis of
the radiation schemes was laid down ten years earlier by Robert
Emden. It was his ideas that were used by the first climate modellers
in the USA, but Weart does not mention him. Weart does mention
Chandrasekhar who really muddied the waters by doing the maths for
stellar atmospheres. Planetary atmospheres are very different.

Cheers, Alastair.

[Raymond W. Arritt]

Alastair wrote:

> I (and Newton) say that warming is caused by absorption. After WWII
> they found that the lines were narrower at high altitude, but the
> radiation has all been absorbed well before it reaches that height.
> In fact it is nearly all absorbed in the first 30m. John Tyndall
> reckoned that 10% was absorbed in the within the first 6 feet.

What happens to the energy that corresponds to the absorbed radiation?
Since energy cannot be created or destroyed (leaving relativistic
effects aside here), do the lowest few tens of meters continue to heat
indefinitely?

> There are two things happening. There is the greenhouse warming at
> the surface of the atmosphere, and there is OLR at the top of the
> atmosphere. The OLR has to balance the ISR but it cannot change
> because it is coming from the mesosphere which does not respond to the
> surface temperature. (I am leaving a lot out, but you should be able
> to see the picture.)

Where does the OLR come from, if (as you state) all the outgoing
radiation from the surface is absorbed in the lowest few tens of meters?

[Alastair]

On Nov 27, 3:11 am, "Raymond W. Arritt"

<rwarr...@bruce.agron.iastate.edu> wrote:
> Alastair wrote:
> > I (and Newton) say that warming is caused by absorption.  After WWII
> > they found that the lines were narrower at high altitude, but the
> > radiation has all been absorbed well before it reaches that height.
> > In fact it is nearly all absorbed in the first 30m.  John Tyndall
> > reckoned that 10% was absorbed in the within the first 6 feet.
>
> What happens to the energy that corresponds to the absorbed radiation?
> Since energy cannot be created or destroyed (leaving relativistic
> effects aside here), do the lowest few tens of meters continue to heat
> indefinitely?

The simple answer is yes. You can see this most obviously on Venus
where the surface heated up until it melted. What happened then was
that clouds formed and cut off the initiating solar radiation. On
Earth the most of the surface is already molten, and the average cloud
cover has makes the incoming solar radiation match the outgoing
longwave radiation. On Mars conditions are different and dust storm
form long before the surface melts. These intermittent dust storms
provide the cooling to Mars that on Earth happens due to "permanent"
by water clouds.

Of course everyone thinks that it is the thick CO2 atmosphere that
gives Venus its runaway greenhouse, but the with the standard model
the maximum surface temperature is twice the effective temperature.
For Venus that is widely exceeded. This is a known problem; see Goody
and Walker's Atmospheres 1972.

On Earth, this would solve the Faint Young Sun problem. See this link
for a description of it.
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.000503
Of course convection is also acting, and that is claimed to save the
model, there is very little convection on Venus or Mars.

> > There are two things happening.  There is the greenhouse warming at
> > the surface of the atmosphere, and there is OLR at the top of the
> > atmosphere. The OLR has to balance the ISR but it cannot change
> > because it is coming from the mesosphere which does not respond to the
> > surface temperature. (I am leaving a lot out, but you should be able
> > to see the picture.)
>
> Where does the OLR come from, if (as you state) all the outgoing
> radiation from the surface is absorbed in the lowest few tens of meters?

A good point! My previous description was an over simplification.
Greenhouse gases both absorb and emit. Both are quantum mechanical
effects and so are not simple but I will try to explain without
writing a text book. So I will ignore water vapour which complicates
things by condensing.

In the middle atmosphere all the CO2 molecules are at the same
temperature so on average they are all radiating with the same
strength. And thus you have a situation where Kirchoff's Law is obeyed
and absorption equals emission. At the TOA there are no molecules in
space radiating in so there is a net loss of radiation out to space
and this is where OLR is generated. (Of course you knew that already.)

At the base of the atmosphere, the surface radiates blackbody
radiation, and the intensity in the CO2 bands depends on the surface
temperature through Planck's blackbody function B(T). Einstein showed
that the greenhouse gas will also emit radiation according to B(T) so
it would seem that once the air equals the surface temperature then
all absorption will cease. So de Saussure's hot box should not work.
http://www.solarcooking.org/saussure.htm

But the T for the CO2 vibrational emission is the vibrational
temperature not the kinetic temperature. Tvib is much lower than T for
CO2 because its vibrations are "frozen out". So it is all of the net
radiation which is absorbed in the first 30 m, not all of the all
outgoing radiation :-)

HTH,

Cheers, Alastair.

[Eric Swanson]

Alastair wrote:
> On Nov 27, 3:11�am, "Raymond W. Arritt"
> <rwarr...@bruce.agron.iastate.edu> wrote:
> > Alastair wrote:
> > > I (and Newton) say that warming is caused by absorption. �After WWII
> > > they found that the lines were narrower at high altitude, but the
> > > radiation has all been absorbed well before it reaches that height.
> > > In fact it is nearly all absorbed in the first 30m. �John Tyndall
> > > reckoned that 10% was absorbed in the within the first 6 feet.

I think you are missing the basic fact that convection carries most of
the energy from the lowest levels up to the Tropopause. In addition,
you seem to think that "surface temperature" means that of the solid
land or ocean, when it actually means the air just above each as far
as climate is concerned . Also, the emissions by the CO2 molecules
tend to go in all directions, with half going up and the other half
going down. Thus, the upward radiation from one layer which is
absorbed in the next higher layer will be split on emission, with only
half going in the upward direction. In the Stratosphere, increasing
CO2 results in more downward emissions as well as more upward
emissions and the Stratosphere cools, AIUI.

You might take another look at the AIP site again, reading the section
on "Simple Models"

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm

Then study the section on Basic Radiation Calculations:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm

Or, there are examples of so-called one dimensional radiative-
convective models, such as those by Ramanathan:

Ramanathan, V., and James A. Coakley, Jr. (1978). "Climate Modeling
through Radiative Convective Models." Reviews of Geophysics and Space
Physics 16: 465-89.

I'm certainly no expert on all of this. The Bibliography associated
with the AIP site is loaded with references.

E. S.
---

[David B. Benson]

On Nov 26, 1:58 pm, Alastair <a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> David Benson wrote in the other thread "All models are wrong. Some are useful."

I was quoting George Box.

There are several reason to doubt UAH TLT in comparison with global
surface temperature products and also RSS. For part of the latter,
see

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/annual-cycle-in-uah-tlt/

[Alastair]

On Nov 28, 10:47 pm, "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 1:58 pm, Alastair <a...@abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > David Benson wrote in the other thread "All models are wrong.  Some are useful."
>
> I was quoting George Box.

So you wrote.

> There are several reason to doubt UAH TLT in comparison with global
> surface temperature products and also RSS.  For part of the latter,
> see
>
> http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/annual-cycle-in-uah-tlt/

In that thread Tamino argues there should be signal showing more
warming during the Boreal winter. RSS does not show that but UAH
does. So Tamino claims that UAH is implausible!

Can I just point out that if the current models are correct then it
might be implausible but it could just prove that my model is correct!


But I have given up arguing with sceptics. It is a waste of time. The
same seems true of you lot :-( Your minds seem to be as closed as
theirs. It the facts don't suit you they are implausible!

Cheers, Alastair.

[Eric Swanson]

Alastair wrote:

> Can I just point out that if the current models are correct then it
> might be implausible but it could just prove that my model is correct!
>
>
> But I have given up arguing with sceptics. It is a waste of time. The
> same seems true of you lot :-( Your minds seem to be as closed as
> theirs. It the facts don't suit you they are implausible!
>
> Cheers, Alastair.

Alastair,

If you really have a "model", you should write up your findings and
publish them. Otherwise, for all we know, you are just blowing
smoke. Mental models are fun to think about, but, in the case of the
atmospheric energy balance, they are not going to cut it. For
example, does your model reproduce the measured lapse rate in the
atmosphere? Does your model reproduce the known seasonal cycle? Does
it give a good representation of rainfall distribution? Show us the
data. Time to fish or cut bait.

E. S.
---

[David B. Benson]

On Nov 28, 4:18 pm, Eric Swanson <e_swan...@skybest.com> wrote:
> ... For

> example, does your model reproduce the measured lapse rate in the
> atmosphere?

Actually, the measured lapse rate doesn't quite agree with standard
theory, if I understand what I am reading.

[Eric Swanson]

Well, the lapse rate does vary with latitude and season, as well as
with weather. I would expect that the current models would have a
difficult time handling all the different conditions. But the
ultimate question is, does Alastair have a better model?

Alastair claims that the sonde data is to be preferred for climate
assessment. The sondes measure the temperature profile, from which
the local lapse rate is derived. It seems to me that he should show
us how well his "model" can match the sonde data. Surely he knows the
importance of model verification. So, Alastair, where's the data from
your "model"???

Hint: Produce a graph and post it on one of the image hosting sites,
then give us the link...

E. S.
---

[Alastair]

Eric,

You are correct. I should be working on producing my paper rather than
spending my time composing notes here which I
vainly believe will deliver the killer punch.

However, I do have a theoretical model which I produced a couple of
years ago, where the Upper Troposphere temperature does not rise when
CO2 concentrations do. At the time I did not know what the correct
source function was. The source function is the second term in the
Schawrzchild equation viz. B(T)kρ. I now believe that the form of the
source function is correct. It is just that T should not be the
kinetic temperature that is used bu the models. It should be the
vibrational temperature which is considerably lower.

Anyway, here is the model. What do you think?
http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.htm

Cheers, Alastair.

[Eric Swanson]

> Schawrzchild equation viz. B(T)k�. I now believe that the form of the

> source function is correct. It is just that T should not be the
> kinetic temperature that is used bu the models. It should be the
> vibrational temperature which is considerably lower.
>
> Anyway, here is the model. What do you think?
> http://www.abmcdonald.freeserve.co.uk/brief/brief.htm
>
> Cheers, Alastair.

Thanks Alastair.

Now, all we need is someone who understands the models and will take
the time to reply to you. I do notice that you don't mention
convection in your comments. The slab models also include vertical
convection, AIUI. Your graphic does not include the increase in
temperature with altitude found in the lower stratosphere, either.

E. S.
---

[Alastair]

Eric,

That paper needs to be completely rewritten, with a two column model.
IMHO, the Manabe (and Wetherald) single column convection scheme is a
hack. He sets the maximum lapse rate to 6.5 K/km, but since convection
is inevitable, that is equivalent to setting it equal to the lapse
rate. Thus the lapse rate is a parameter and not a prognostic
variable.

So either I adapt a GCM, or I invent a two column (night and day)
model with an ascending and descending columns. In either case I will
be too busy to get involved in long conversations here :-(

Cheers, Alastair.

[Don Libby]

A follow-on to prior conversations: addressing the American Geophysical
Union meeting in Madison Wisconin on Dec 17, Vavrus, Kutzbach and Philippon
will present evidence for anthropogenic climate change attributable to land
use practices dating back thousands of years, which may have artificially
extended the current interglacial period: http://www.news.wisc.edu/16083

-dl