C02 as a greenhouse gas
Geoff
with trace amounts of methane and ozone. What are the relative
strengths of these gases to trap heat in the atmosphere? (For example
is C02 5 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas than water vapor, or
all they all the same?)
Thanks
Geoff
Ian St. John
It is not that simple. Every GHG has a different 'global warming potential'
based on both it's IR windows and it's concentration and it is not even
linear. Beyond that the different GHGs tend to 'steal the other guys
thunder'. That is, an IR photon that *would* have been trapped by X may be
trapped by Y first. You can only look at it from the point of view of 'what
if there were no <...> and see how much that would affect the total.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
Table 2.2 Contributions of atmospheric ratiation absorbers
to thermal trapping
Species removed % trapped radiation remaining
All 0
H2O CO2 O3 50
H2O 64
Clouds 86
CO2 88
O3 97
None 100
Data from Rev. Geophys. & Space Sci. 16 (1978) 465
Beyond that we also have to consider the 'persistence' of the GHGs. If you
removed ALL of the CO2, the water would eventually freeze out of the
atmosphere and you would be left with a negligeable (3% from O3) GH effect.
That is because the concentration of H2O is dependent on temperature (
feedback effect ) and it's atmosphereic lifetime is at most a few days. As a
CAUSE of the current surface temperature, water is negligeable. As a
*contributor* to the greenhouse effect, it is substantial ( though not that
much bigger than CO2. )
>
> Thanks
>
> Geoff
Geoff
news:t3DAc.39098$nY.12...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Given this set of numbers what is the response to the argument that
since C02 is such a small fraction of the greenhouse gas potential
(from my reading O3 is about twice as efficient as H2O, CO2 about 35%
more efficient) and that there is nothing to do about water vapour
anyway, why spend so much time, effort and resources on something that
accounts for a very small percentage of the atmosphere's capacity to
create a greenhouse effect?
Thanks
Geoff
<snip>
David Ball
wrote:
Because CO2, Methane, etc have a direct influence on the
radiation balance. Water vapour has a secondary effect through
feedback processes. CO2 causes the temperature of the planet to
change. This changes other atmospheric processes like evaporation,
advection, convection, ... which then alter the water vapour levels in
the atmosphere. The real problem is not the concentration of the
primary GHG but the rate that they are changing.
w...@bas.ac.uk
Um, did you ever stop to wonder where you got that 97% figure from, and
if it was correct or not? It isn't. 50% is more like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Thomas Palm
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
>> http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
>> Table 2.2 Contributions of atmospheric ratiation absorbers
>> to thermal trapping
>>
>> Species removed % trapped radiation remaining
>> All 0
>> H2O CO2 O3 50
>> H2O 64
>> Clouds 86
>> CO2 88
>> O3 97
>> None 100
>> Data from Rev. Geophys. & Space Sci. 16 (1978) 465
>
> Given this set of numbers what is the response to the argument that
> since C02 is such a small fraction of the greenhouse gas potential
> (from my reading O3 is about twice as efficient as H2O, CO2 about 35%
> more efficient) and that there is nothing to do about water vapour
> anyway, why spend so much time, effort and resources on something that
> accounts for a very small percentage of the atmosphere's capacity to
> create a greenhouse effect?
That is a bogus argument created by people who just don't want to do
anything about climate change, often because they are in the business of
emitting CO2. We may not be able to control water vapor directly, but warm
air in general contains more water so a small warming from CO2 will be
amplified as the water contents of the atmosphere increases. It is a lot
more useful to consider the question: will adding more CO2 cause enough
climate change to be a problem, and the answer to that question is yes.
You have to keep in mind that the total greehouse effect on Earth is about
35 C so even a fairly small change of it is going to be significant.
charliew2
Thomas, water vapor is definitely different than CO2. Water vapor acts as a
heat transfer medium, meaning that it condenses several thousand feed up in
the atmosphere, releasing its heat of vaporization as it radiates IR
radiation into outer space. It also forms clouds as it is condensing,
increasing the albedo of earth. The point? Everyone focuses ONLY on the
fact that water vapor is a positive feedback relative to CO2 increases. In
point of fact, if this logic were true, ANY small temperature increase would
cause a fairly quick and rapid positive feedback runaway in global
temperatures. In my opinion, it's time to consider that there are also
negative feedbacks involved regarding water vapor.
Lloyd Parker
it's the one that's mostly responsible for the addtional warming. In
addition, since it's the one people are responsible for, it's the one people
can do something about.
A virus may raise your body temp. from 310 K ro 314 K. This seems like an
awfully small %, doesn't it? But it's enough to kill you (106 F).
Lloyd Parker
1. Water is easily and quickly removed from the atmosphere by nature (as
rain). So it's in balance. It's CO2 (along with CH4, CFC, etc.) that's
increasing.
2. We're talking about the _added_ warming that's occurring, not the natural
warming due to the natural greenhouse effect.
Phil Hays
>>> why spend so much time, effort and resources on something
>>> that accounts for a very small percentage of the atmosphere's
>>> capacity to create a greenhouse effect?
>> That is a bogus argument created by people who just don't want to do
>> anything about climate change, often because they are in the business
>> of emitting CO2. We may not be able to control water vapor directly,
>> but warm air in general contains more water so a small warming from
>> CO2 will be amplified as the water contents of the atmosphere
>> increases.
>Thomas, water vapor is definitely different than CO2. Water vapor acts as a
>heat transfer medium, meaning that it condenses several thousand feed up in
>the atmosphere, releasing its heat of vaporization as it radiates IR
>radiation into outer space. It also forms clouds as it is condensing,
>increasing the albedo of earth. The point? Everyone focuses ONLY on the
>fact that water vapor is a positive feedback relative to CO2 increases. In
>point of fact, if this logic were true, ANY small temperature increase would
>cause a fairly quick and rapid positive feedback runaway in global
>temperatures. In my opinion, it's time to consider that there are also
>negative feedbacks involved regarding water vapor.
Positive feedback doesn't mean instability or runaway. Charlie, you
should have enough control systems background to understand that. If
you don't, then crack open the books and look up "Nyquist stability
criterion". Or be net aware and google for it:
http://www.chem.mtu.edu/~tbco/cm416/nyquist.html
--
Phil Hays
Phil_hays at posting domain should work for email
Thomas Palm
news:10d6edv...@corp.supernews.com:
> Thomas Palm wrote:
>>> Given this set of numbers what is the response to the argument that
>>> since C02 is such a small fraction of the greenhouse gas potential
>>> (from my reading O3 is about twice as efficient as H2O, CO2 about
>>> 35% more efficient) and that there is nothing to do about water
>>> vapour anyway, why spend so much time, effort and resources on
>>> something that accounts for a very small percentage of the
>>> atmosphere's capacity to create a greenhouse effect?
>>
>> That is a bogus argument created by people who just don't want to do
>> anything about climate change, often because they are in the business
>> of emitting CO2. We may not be able to control water vapor directly,
>> but warm air in general contains more water so a small warming from
>> CO2 will be amplified as the water contents of the atmosphere
>> increases.
>
> Thomas, water vapor is definitely different than CO2. Water vapor
> acts as a heat transfer medium, meaning that it condenses several
> thousand feed up in the atmosphere, releasing its heat of vaporization
> as it radiates IR radiation into outer space.
This is included in all climate models. Any short description is going to
have to ignore some effects, as you prove in your next sentence.
> It also forms clouds as
> it is condensing, increasing the albedo of earth.
If you want to drag clouds into the picture you should mention that clouds
also reflect IR from the ground keeping heat in. Whether the net effect is
positive or negative depends on the altitude and thickness of the clouds.
> The point?
> Everyone focuses ONLY on the fact that water vapor is a positive
> feedback relative to CO2 increases. In point of fact, if this logic
> were true, ANY small temperature increase would cause a fairly quick
> and rapid positive feedback runaway in global temperatures. In my
> opinion, it's time to consider that there are also negative feedbacks
> involved regarding water vapor.
Everyone making models know all this and do not concentrate only on the
positive feedbacks. As Phil Hays already pointed out, a positive feedback
doesn't mean instability. I've seen somewhere that for the simplest 1D
models without clouds the system does become unstable for a wet surface
about ~28 C due to the non-linearity of water vapor concentration, but
GCM:s do take lots of other effects into accounts making this instability
disappear.
Ian St. John
You clipped the point that H20 is temperature dependent and not 'persistent'
so it cannot be a *cause* of global warming so much as a feedback to
existing warming.
> (from my reading O3 is about twice as efficient as H2O, CO2 about 35%
> more efficient)
Note that, because of the competition between different species, the
variations in concentration, and the 'diminishing returns' of high
concentration the 'marginal effect' of changes in amount are different for
each species and for their current concentrations. You cannot say how
efficient their GWP is except at specified concentrations.
> and that there is nothing to do about water vapour anyway,
One must include it to understand the whole picture, even if it cannot be a
control on the process.
> why spend so much time, effort and resources on something that
> accounts for a very small percentage of the atmosphere's capacity to
> create a greenhouse effect?
I'm not sure I follow. Based on current concentrations ( see chart above )
O3 is 3%
CO2 is 12%
H20 is 36%
Obviously we could make more change in GW by a small 'percentage' change in
the H2O concentration, but this is totally impractical since we have no way
to control evaporation, and while it forms a large factor in the GW effect,
the MASS of water that provides this change is HUGE compared to CO2. Water
vapor forms 2% to 3% of the atmosphere, say 25,000 ppm! To change it by 10%
( equivalent to reducing CO2 by 30% ) you would need to remove 2,500 ppm of
water, a huge feat even if we had the technology to do it and it would last
for, at most, two days before returning to normal from evaporation. Totally
impossible to keep up that kind of effort for long.
To attack it from the point of view of O3 is equally silly, since, if we
could do anythign at ALL about O3, we would have eliminated it to clean up
the smog of the '70s. It is created by photodissociation of O2 by UV rays
and unless we wanted to shade the planet from the sun, we are going to have
to live with it.
However, CO2 is both small in mass, as is an obvious targets, since not only
are changes in the concentration 'persistent' for hundreds of years, and the
quantities that need to be manipulated much smaller, but we have a very good
technological grip on all the processes that are changing the concentration
today. I.e. fossil fuel combustion.
Is this too deep for you?
>
> Thanks
> Geoff
>
> <snip>
Michael Tobis
> The point? Everyone focuses ONLY on the
> fact that water vapor is a positive feedback relative to CO2 increases. In
> point of fact, if this logic were true, ANY small temperature increase would
> cause a fairly quick and rapid positive feedback runaway in global
> temperatures.
Not all amplifiers are unstable.
> In my opinion, it's time to consider that there are also
> negative feedbacks involved regarding water vapor.
Well, there are some attenuating feedbacks regarding clouds, but the
water vapor greenhouse feedback dominates.
Note that even weather models need to get this particular feedback
right, because water vapor enhancement of radiative forcing is big
enough and fast enough to affect weather on weather prediction time
scales. So we have plenty of evidence that we have this feedback about
right.
It's about twenty years too late to be arguing on this point. Not that
that would stop anyone. (sigh)
mt
Ian St. John
In many ways.
> Water vapor acts as a heat transfer medium, meaning that it condenses
> several thousand feed up in the atmosphere, releasing its heat of
> vaporization as it radiates IR radiation into outer space.
The change in density for a specific change in altitude determines when a
packet of air is 'unstable' and will drive convection. This 'lapse rate' is
pretty much set in stone by the physics of air and water vapor, and their
densities. While changes in convection are possible, they do not really
have much effect on the global temperature since even at the top of the
troposphere, the IR is still mostly returned to the earth. Only at the
'equipotential point' where the atmosphere is thin enough to stop convection
forces is it possible to have a radiative emission that balances incoming
solar radiation and so the temperature at the surface is set by the height
of this 'radiating surface' times the lapse rate to the ground. Change in
heat transfer in the convective ( troposphere ) part of the atmosphere will
have ZERO effect on global warming.
> It also
> forms clouds as it is condensing, increasing the albedo of earth.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/iris2.html
"Based upon CERES data, Lin's team concluded that the reduction in cloudy,
moist skies allows extra sunlight to warm the surface by up to 1.8 Watts per
square meter-a small but positive net energy flux (Lin et al. 2001).
"Our results are based upon actual observations that are used to drive
global climate models," Lin concludes. "And when we use actual observations
from CERES we find that the Iris Hypothesis won't work.""
> The point? Everyone focuses ONLY on the fact that water vapor is a
> positive feedback relative to CO2 increases.
Nope. They focus on the 'climate sensitivity' which subsumes changes in
cloud cover, water vapor feedback, and albedo to result in a 'fudge factor'
for how all other processes react to a forcing.
> In point of fact, if
> this logic were true, ANY small temperature increase would cause a
> fairly quick and rapid positive feedback runaway in global
> temperatures.
Now Charliie!. I am beginning to think that you are uneducated, much less an
engineer. You have to have a 'positive feedback' factor above unity to have
a 'runaway'. The feedback from water is about 0.6 so it causes a change of
about 1.5 times the original forcing ( series summation ).
> In my opinion, it's time to consider that there are
> also negative feedbacks involved regarding water vapor.
In my opinion, it is time you stopped adding stupid opinions and went back
to school to get your GED.
P.S. yes they MAY be negative feedbacks with water vapor. When we find one,
we will let you know... In the meantime, don't let your imagination run away
with you.
charliew2
OK. I'll rephrase. Positive feedback, in the absence of offsetting
negative feedbacks, leads to runaway. The talk in this newsgroup about the
positive feedback from water vapor IMPLIES that there are only positive
feedbacks. This simply isn't true, whether or not you use Nyquist in your
argument. Naturally, the public hasn't a clue, and such "grandstanding"
looks to me like attempts to use scare tactics to win your argument. Tsk,
tsk!
charliew2
I'm not trying to "stop anyone". I'm arguing that a layman will tend to
conclude that the comments about water vapor being a positive feedback means
that CO2 increases causing higher temperatures necessarily means some type
of runaway temperature increase via positive feedback from water vapor
(e.g., Roger Coppock's assumption of an exponential temperature increase).
Runaways just flat ain't gonna happen, and the public needs to hear that.
Steve Schulin
m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote:
Fortunately, we have the last about 20 years experience to help
understand. Karner [J. Geophys. Res., 10.1029/2001JD002024, 2002]
concludes that negative feedback has dominated the climate system during
1979-2001. Here's how he puts it in the final paragraph of conclusions
section:
"The revealed antipersistence in the lower tropospheric temperature
increments does not support the science of global warming developed by
IPCC [1996]. Negative long-range correlation of the increments during
last 22 years means that negative feedback has been dominating in the
Earth climate system during that period. The result is opposite to
suggestion of Mitchell [1989] about domination of a positive cumulative
feedback after a forced temperature change. Dominating negative feedback
also shows that the period for CO2 induced climate change has not
started during the last 22 years. Increasing concentration of greenhouse
gases in the Earth atmosphere appeared to produce too weak forcing in
order to dominate in the Earth climate system. Estimate of the adjusted
radiative forcing due to changes in the concentrations of the so-called
greenhouse gases since preindustrial times is 2.45 Wm-2 [IPCC, 1996]. If
the increase was during 15 years, its annual increment (0.16 Wm-2) would
be comparable to standard deviation of the daily increment of solar
forcing at the top of the atmosphere (0.18 Wm-2). The observed global
warming in surface air temperature series [Jones et al., 1999] is more
likely produced due to overall nonstationary variability of the Earth
climate system under anti-persistent solar forcing."
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Jim Norton
somewhat different numbers. He then claims that most of the carbon dioxide is
from natural sources, so humans aren't causing global warming at all. Of
course he neglets to mention that the increase in CO2 is from people:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123013,00.html
==============================
Anti-environmental myths
http://info-pollution.com/myths.htm
Practical skepticism
http://info-pollution.com/skeptic.htm
Ian St. John
> Phil Hays wrote:
<snip>
>> Positive feedback doesn't mean instability or runaway.
>
> OK. I'll rephrase. Positive feedback, in the absence of offsetting
> negative feedbacks, leads to runaway.
Charlie. Your ignorance is exposed. Only a feedback greater than unity
causes a 'runaway'. A negative feedback can ALSO be a 'runaway' in the
opposite direction. The reason that water vapor doesn't cause a 'runaway' is
that he positive feedback factor is 0.6, less than unity.
Where did you go to school and which grade was your highest grade actually
passed? Three? Four?
Phil Hays
I would not expect that a controls engineer would make such a blunder.
Explain using math, please. Please do it using the Nyquist stability
criterion, as I would expect a control engineer to understand. Or use
either of the first or second methods of Liapunov.
Or try this simple discrete time example:
X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
This is a first order discrete time system. If k is negative, the
feedback is negative. If k is positive, the feedback is positive.
What range of k is stable?
I'll start by giving a few free hints:
k < -1 is unstable. Try -1.1 and find out.
k = .1 is quite stable. Try it and find out. This is a simple
example that anyone that can add and multiply can verify for
themselves that positive feedback does not meen runaway.
Now, do you want to buy a clue?
> The talk in this newsgroup about the
>positive feedback from water vapor IMPLIES that there are only positive
>feedbacks. This simply isn't true, whether or not you use Nyquist in your
>argument. Naturally, the public hasn't a clue, and such "grandstanding"
>looks to me like attempts to use scare tactics to win your argument. Tsk,
>tsk!
Clues for sale or rent,
hints for just fifty cents.
No trolls, no spam, no twits.
Only fools smoke them cigarettes.
Josh Halpern
w...@bas.ac.uk wrote:
>Geoff <gghi...@nospam.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Water vapor constitutes 97% of atmospheric greenhouse gases 3% C02
>>with trace amounts of methane and ozone. What are the relative
>>strengths of these gases to trap heat in the atmosphere? (For example
>>is C02 5 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas than water vapor, or
>>all they all the same?)
>>
>>
>
>Um, did you ever stop to wonder where you got that 97% figure from, and
>if it was correct or not? It isn't. 50% is more like it.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
>
Let me point out that talking about "efficiency as a greenhouse gas" can
be misleading. Such efficiency is usually measured on a per molecule
basis.
The agreed name for it is "greenhouse potential" and CO2 is arbitrarily
assigned as unity. The efficiency as a greenhouse gas depends on the
ability to absorb IR light withing the emission envelope of a ~ 290K black
body and the atmospheric lifetime, as well as various overlaps with other
components
The real high GWP are from perfluorinated compounds, and thereby lies
some interesting tales.
Here is a table
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/ees/climate/slides/table_2.html
Since the effect of any component depends on the concentration of that
component you can have something with a small greenhouse potential and
a large concentration, having a large effect.
Since water vapor concentration is controlled by temperature and not
emission, it is not generally included in such tables.
josh halpern
>
>-W.
>
>
>
David Ball
wrote:
Charlie, you're popping off again without having a clue what
you're talking about. Cloud produces both a positive and a negative
feedback depending on the time of year. What's worse is that you don't
have a clue.
David Ball
Steve, if I saw what you're pushing lying in the street, I'd
step over it.
charliew2
How about I buy you a clue from a simple, real world (not college textbook,
oversimplified) example? Let's say that you have a cruise control on your
car. You speed up to the desired speed, and press the button to engage the
speed control. When the speed drops below the setpoint, the controller lets
up on the accelerator pedal, and when you go faster than desired, the
controller pushes down on the accelerator pedal. In this instance, the
controller acts such that it adds to the deviation from setpoint, which is a
classic example of positive feedback.
I have to conclude that my definition of positive feedback is different than
yours. Your simple example is talking about stability, which is distinctly
different than positive feedback. Negative feedback systems can be stable
or unstable, depending on what the overall "loop" gain is (combination of
process gain and controller gain). From my experience, ALL positive
feedback systems are unstable. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to
understand the subtle difference.
>
>> The talk in this newsgroup about the
>> positive feedback from water vapor IMPLIES that there are only
>> positive feedbacks. This simply isn't true, whether or not you use
>> Nyquist in your argument. Naturally, the public hasn't a clue, and
>> such "grandstanding" looks to me like attempts to use scare tactics
>> to win your argument. Tsk, tsk!
>
> Clues for sale or rent,
> hints for just fifty cents.
> No trolls, no spam, no twits.
> Only fools smoke them cigarettes.
Indeed.
Thomas Palm
news:10d75tm...@corp.supernews.com:
> to conclude that the comments about water vapor being a positive
> feedback means that CO2 increases causing higher temperatures
> necessarily means some type of runaway temperature increase via
> positive feedback from water vapor (e.g., Roger Coppock's assumption
> of an exponential temperature increase). Runaways just flat ain't
> gonna happen, and the public needs to hear that.
Nope, that was not what you were arguing or you'd have said so from the
start. You were just into your usual game of trying to give the impression
that everyone else is overstating the problem. When you said that "it's
time to consider that there are also negative feedbacks involved regarding
water vapor." you basically accused everyone else of being fools or
dishonest for not having done so. As it is clear you just don't know very
much about the climate it would be better if you had a somewhat less
arrogant attitude.
As for the feedback, what you fail to take into account in your fear about
a runaway greenhouse effect is the stabilizing effect of the T^4 dependence
on thermal radiation from Earth, which provides a strong negative feedback.
That way you can have positive feedback from water wapor and still not have
a runaway effect.
James Annan
> I have to conclude that my definition of positive feedback is different than
> yours.
And, surprise surprise, yours is bogus, incomplete, or plain wrong, or
some combination of all three.
Which is pretty much par for the course for your "contributions" to this
newsgroup.
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
Phil Hays
And the answer is??
>> I'll start by giving a few free hints:
>>
>> k < -1 is unstable. Try -1.1 and find out.
>>
>> k = .1 is quite stable. Try it and find out. This is a simple
>> example that anyone that can add and multiply can verify for
>> themselves that positive feedback does not meen runaway.
Did you verify that positive k was stable, at least for k = .1?
>How about I buy you a clue from a simple, real world (not college textbook,
>oversimplified) example? Let's say that you have a cruise control on your
>car. You speed up to the desired speed, and press the button to engage the
>speed control. When the speed drops below the setpoint, the controller lets
>up on the accelerator pedal, and when you go faster than desired, the
>controller pushes down on the accelerator pedal. In this instance, the
>controller acts such that it adds to the deviation from setpoint, which is a
>classic example of positive feedback.
I could again ask you to treat this as an engineering problem. Give
your definitions. Write the equations. But would you do that? Could
you do that?
Or I could write about any of several well known systems that use
positive feedback, like a regenerative radio receiver.
Or I could point out that this "cruise control" example of yours could
be the same as my simple example if the controller was discrete time
and was slow enough. In other words, the "cruise control" would take
a speed measurement once every n seconds, then set the accelerator
based on that measurement, where n is large enough to have the car to
have responded to the change in throttle.
Or I could work through a more complex example.
>I have to conclude that my definition of positive feedback is different than
>yours.
If so, then your definition doesn't match your observations about
water vapor.
> Your simple example is talking about stability, which is distinctly
>different than positive feedback. Negative feedback systems can be stable
>or unstable, depending on what the overall "loop" gain is (combination of
>process gain and controller gain).
You told me that positive feedback is unstable. I gave you an example
of a system with positive feedback that was stable. What is subtle
about that?
> From my experience, ALL positive
>feedback systems are unstable.
I've used a regenerative radio receiver.
> Of course, I wouldn't expect you to
>understand the subtle difference.
Did you work my example? Need a hint?
Clues for sale or rent,
hints for just fifty cents.
No trolls, no spam, no twits.
Only fools smoke them cigarettes.
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
While Mr. Ball's tilt may seem a constant, his reply here may be
indicative of a wobble. Compare with his tactics desribed back in July
2001:
Ball "Control Triangle" Tactic A:
When someone posts something from other than peer-reviewed journal, Mr.
Ball is wont to comment disparagingly on its heredity, while ignoring
any substantive points. Such is the case with an article posted to start
the thread titled "Climate models cannot yet successfully simulate
present climate conditions [Baliunas]". That thread is archived at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=schulin+baliunas+models&hl=en&safe=off&
rnum=1&selm=75b8395d.0107070327.1cf14130%40posting.google.com
Mr. Ball didn't actually participate in that thread. This of course was
his right. But that didn't stop him from commenting on it with a series
of insults and quibbles, ignoring all the examples of how poor the two
models used in impacts assessment performed, in a different thread,
archived at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=13a64710c7f322b4,73&see
km=9iskn8%245cvc%241%40newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com#p
He called the article "stupid", "nonsense", and opined "Most people who
know better realize the piece from Ms. Baliunas for what it is." He
noted the author's charged language. He wondered aloud if I had learned
propaganda techniques at her knee. But not once did he address the
obvious ridiculousness of predicting impacts with models that don't even
stay within 200% on precipitation or 10?F on temperature.
Ball "Control Triangle" Tactic B:
When someone posts something from peer-reviewed literature, Mr. Ball is
wont to comment disparagingly on the poster's "appeal to authority". The
most incredible example of this is how he has, to this day, ignored the
paragraphs from the NRC committee report that were posted in direct
response to his question "Please explain your reservations on climate
models and provide some insights into how such models can be improved."
That thread is archived
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=13a64710c7f322b4,76&see
km=75b8395d.0107191438.4e757df3%40posting.google.com#p
Ball "Control Triangle" Tactic C:
When someone makes an unreferenced comment, Mr. Ball is as wont to call
poster names as to demand citation. If you choose to bring up a
citation, he belittles you for dealving into matters too complex for
mere interested citizens to understand. If you don't, he claims victory
by your silence.
--- END OF EXCERPT FROM JULY 2001 POST ---
Very truly,
Eric Swanson
>How about I buy you a clue from a simple, real world (not college textbook,
>oversimplified) example? Let's say that you have a cruise control on your
>car. You speed up to the desired speed, and press the button to engage the
>speed control. When the speed drops below the setpoint, the controller lets
>up on the accelerator pedal, and when you go faster than desired, the
>controller pushes down on the accelerator pedal. In this instance, the
>controller acts such that it adds to the deviation from setpoint, which is a
>classic example of positive feedback.
Your example is confusing at best. The fact that the entire system is working
against a large drag is lost in your description. The forward loop is the
"amplifier" of the engine working against that drag. The feedback is the
difference between the set point and actual speeds, thus, it's negative.
There is a minus sign in the summing junction, if you will, thus the low speed
produces a positive signal into the controller, increasing the power output.
If the speed exceeded the set point, the signal from the summing junction would
be negative.
But, does your controller actuate the brake when the speed becomes too great?
Not likely. At highway speeds on gentle slopes, the dissipation from air
drag is often enough to slow the vehicle. Some speed controllers are unstable
and tend to "oscillate" under certain conditions. Consider going down a hill
with a slope for which the vehicle would have a terminal velocity slightly
below the set point. Then, the controller would boost the speed to a
point above the set point, then shut off until the speed slows below the
set point. The result would be some "hunting", ie, oscillation, the severity
of which would depend upon the time constants or delay in the controller.
>I have to conclude that my definition of positive feedback is different than
>yours. Your simple example is talking about stability, which is distinctly
>different than positive feedback. Negative feedback systems can be stable
>or unstable, depending on what the overall "loop" gain is (combination of
>process gain and controller gain). From my experience, ALL positive
>feedback systems are unstable. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to
>understand the subtle difference.
Yes, your example is one of negative feedback which can be unstable.
I suspect that complicated systems with multiple feedbacks, some of
which are positive, can be stable as long as the net effect is a
negative feedback. With the climate system, there is so much dissipation
that the result is highly damped and a slight increase in one variable
with positive feedback will not cause the system to shift into a runaway
(explosive) condition.
That said, there are likely to be thresholds in the system which could lead to
bistable conditions, such as the THC, which is thought to have several stable
states. If an overall warming results in the crossing of a threshold, it may
not be possible to return the climate to it's previous state by removing the
forcing which caused the change of state, as there is the prospect of
"deadbands" associated with the threshold type nonlinearity. The existance
of Ice Ages and Interglacials confirms that there are at least 2 stable states
for the climate system and there is the possibility of others.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
Nothing of significance. As such, it was deleted. Perfesser,
any time you want to get down and dirty and discuss the science just
say the word. Of course, that will require you to understand the
basics, be open to other viewpoints and admit when you are wrong,
three things that you don't seem to have the ability to do.
BTW, have you figured out how something that doesn't change,
wobbles?
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
In fact, the part you snipped was an illustration of how you, though
unwavering in your deceit, wobble on the application of tactics over
time.
charliew2
I agree 100%. The T^4 effect guarantees that the GHG "problem" is
inherently stable.
charliew2
> charliew2 wrote:
>
>> I have to conclude that my definition of positive feedback is
>> different than yours.
>
> And, surprise surprise, yours is bogus, incomplete, or plain wrong, or
> some combination of all three.
>
> Which is pretty much par for the course for your "contributions" to
> this newsgroup.
>
> James
I'm not surprised by your comments, James. People like you don't know the
difference between a positive process gain and positive feedback.
charliew2
The answer is that "k" in your equation is equivalent to a positive process
gain, not positive feedback.
Or you could think about the cruise control example before responding. A
cruise control with positive feedback can never hold a desired speed
setpoint.
>
> Or I could work through a more complex example.
>
>
>> I have to conclude that my definition of positive feedback is
>> different than yours.
>
> If so, then your definition doesn't match your observations about
> water vapor.
That's correct, it doesn't.
(cut)
David Ball
<steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>In article <fhm8d0d9389q61uvi...@4ax.com>,
> David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:28:37 -0400, Steve Schulin
>> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
>> Nothing of significance. As such, it was deleted. Perfesser,
>> any time you want to get down and dirty and discuss the science just
>> say the word. Of course, that will require you to understand the
>> basics, be open to other viewpoints and admit when you are wrong,
>> three things that you don't seem to have the ability to do.
>> BTW, have you figured out how something that doesn't change,
>> wobbles?
>
>In fact, the part you snipped was an illustration of how you, though
>unwavering in your deceit, wobble on the application of tactics over
>time.
>
>Very truly,
>
Why do you end your posts with this? You couldn't tell the
truth if your life depended on it.
Thomas Palm
news:10d90l3...@corp.supernews.com:
> Thomas Palm wrote:
>> As for the feedback, what you fail to take into account in your fear
>> about a runaway greenhouse effect is the stabilizing effect of the
>> T^4 dependence on thermal radiation from Earth, which provides a
>> strong negative feedback. That way you can have positive feedback
>> from water wapor and still not have a runaway effect.
>
> I agree 100%. The T^4 effect guarantees that the GHG "problem" is
> inherently stable.
Why the quotation marks around "problem"? Can't you just for once discuss
an issue in a scientific manner without trying to drop hints that we really
shouldn't worry? Why did you even bring up the possibility of a runaway
effect if you don't believe in it and no one else had mentioned it?
The situation isn't inherently stable, though. Given a sufficiently strong
positive feedback there will be a runaway effect. Fortunately we don't seem
to be close to any such point at the moment, but there is nothing
inherently impossible that it could happen. It did, after all, happen on
Venus.
Phil Hays
The process gain is unity. If the feedback term "k" is zero, then the
output X follows the input Y with a gain of one, and with a time
delay. I'm sure an experienced controls engineer could write a
similar equation with a non-unity process gain.
>>>> I'll start by giving a few free hints:
>>>>
>>>> k < -1 is unstable. Try -1.1 and find out.
>>>>
>>>> k = .1 is quite stable. Try it and find out. This is a simple
>>>> example that anyone that can add and multiply can verify for
>>>> themselves that positive feedback does not meen runaway.
>>
>> Did you verify that positive k was stable, at least for k = .1?
Well, did you?
>>> How about I buy you a clue from a simple, real world (not college
>>> textbook, oversimplified) example? Let's say that you have a cruise
>>> control on your car. You speed up to the desired speed, and press
>>> the button to engage the speed control. When the speed drops below
>>> the setpoint, the controller lets up on the accelerator pedal, and
>>> when you go faster than desired, the controller pushes down on the
>>> accelerator pedal. In this instance, the controller acts such that
>>> it adds to the deviation from setpoint, which is a classic example
>>> of positive feedback.
>>
>> I could again ask you to treat this as an engineering problem. Give
>> your definitions. Write the equations. But would you do that? Could
>> you do that?
>>
>> Or I could write about any of several well known systems that use
>> positive feedback, like a regenerative radio receiver.
>>
>> Or I could point out that this "cruise control" example of yours could
>> be the same as my simple example if the controller was discrete time
>> and was slow enough. In other words, the "cruise control" would take
>> a speed measurement once every n seconds, then set the accelerator
>> based on that measurement, where n is large enough to have the car to
>> have responded to the change in throttle.
>
>Or you could think about the cruise control example before responding. A
>cruise control with positive feedback can never hold a desired speed
>setpoint.
Yes, Charlie, but that doesn't mean that it is not stable or will
"runaway", which is what you were claiming. All implementable
feedback systems will have an error between the desired and actual
output. It is true that your "cruise control" with positive feedback
will have a larger steady state error ("DC") than a "cruise control"
that just sets the throttle to a fixed value. It might, however, have
less dynamic error ("AC"), because it might be more stable. Showing
this requires some more involved math, or a computer model of a
system, or an experiment with the right real system.
>> Or I could work through a more complex example.
>>
>>
>>> I have to conclude that my definition of positive feedback is
>>> different than yours.
>>
>> If so, then your definition doesn't match your observations about
>> water vapor.
>
>That's correct, it doesn't.
Care to explain?
Phil Hays
If the process gain was zero, what would the output be?
If the feedback was zero, what would the output be?
Does that shoe leather taste nice?
charliew2
> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>> James Annan wrote:
>>> charliew2 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have to conclude that my definition of positive feedback is
>>>> different than yours.
>>>
>>> And, surprise surprise, yours is bogus, incomplete, or plain wrong,
>>> or some combination of all three.
>>>
>>> Which is pretty much par for the course for your "contributions" to
>>> this newsgroup.
>>>
>>> James
>>
>> I'm not surprised by your comments, James. People like you don't
>> know the difference between a positive process gain and positive
>> feedback.
>
> If the process gain was zero, what would the output be?
If the process gain is zero, the output would be zero, as process gain is
the ratio of output over input.
>
> If the feedback was zero, what would the output be?
That depends on what the input is, and what the transfer function is.
>
> Does that shoe leather taste nice?
You know, Phil, it is becoming obvious to me that the jargon used by most
members of this NG is distinctly different than expected. In addition,
since there are at least 50 years of established process control theory and
jargon, it would be nice if you considered that adoption of an established
jargon would be beneficial to furthering your global-warming/climate-change
goals of educating the public (if you have such goals). If anyone in the
future ever starts thinking about process control of global mean
temperature, the conflict between your choice of jargon and the process
control community is going to make it very difficult for you and the process
control guys to understand each other.
Just a suggestion.
Michael Tobis
eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".
There's a remarkable discussion on
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/thread-view.asp?threadid=6723&start=16&posts=24
The short answer to the quandary that Schulin presents us with is that
this result is just a recycling of the suspect Spencer and Christy MSU
data again.
Yes, it's an outlier, but its the same old outlier, which is why
nobody outside the "what-me-worry" press has taken any note of it.
This paper has not really changed anybody's thinking about the
istuation. It's the same old story in a new bookjacket.
There are, after all, strong reasons to believe that the
Spencer/Christy trend is an instrument artifact, not a real
observation. Several other interpretations of the same MSU data show a
warming trend.
Let me quote from the referenced website:
=== begin quote
When looking at statistics you have to look carefully at the
assumptions and background. For example, we know that the climate has
long-term anti-persistency, since otherwise we would end up with a
runaway greenhouse effect. The antipersistency of the climate is not
in contradiction with the IPCC - in fact, models are rather too
antipersistent (they're good at predicting stable climates, not good
at predicting rapid change). In fact, this paper
( dead link to http://ory.ph.biu.ac.il/~havlin/PS/gvbbhs419.pdf )
complains that the models "the models underestimate the long-range
persistence of the atmosphere"
[Persistency, for those who don't know and are reading this, can be
described very basically as a measure of how recent increases effect
future increases. So, if temperature has been going up recently, and
that makes it more likely that it will go up in the future, then it's
persistent.)
Secondly, the Karner paper uses the MSU2 data of Christy et al. We
already know that something is going on in this dataset that is not
compatible with the model predictions. Karner shows that these data
show antipersistency - as might be expected from the observation that
the trend is flat. If CO2 is rising, yet the troposphere is not
warming, then you would expect that there must be a negative feedback
in operation - what Karner has done is to demonstrate the
statistically.
Thirdly, he uses the solar data of Frohlich & Lean. Notably, this is
the dataset that finds no increase in solar brightness over the past
20 years. i.e. it is incompatible with sceptic arguments. Karner finds
that he persistency of this dataset is similar to that of MSU2.
What are we to make of all this? Well, firstly, when something
perturbs the troposphere something acts to return it to normal. This
could, for example, result from el nino followed by la nina (which is
probably the dominant annual-scale fluctuation in the troposphere.
Cooling caused by Pinatubo was followed by warming as the effects wore
off. Etc. There is, however, some persistency (since H>0).
The persistency is similar to the solar persistency. This is hard to
interpret. What it doesn't mean is that there is any correlation
between solar and MSU2 (there clearly isn't). It means that the sun's
output has a similar tendency to return to normal as MSU2. Maybe it's
just coincidence. Maybe there is some complex reason for this - but
Karner doesn't speculate!
===
end quote
Thanks to Tom Rees of Brighton UK for this very helpful analysis.
Let me say that I'm amazed that JGR let such a strong statement about
IPCC into the final article. I think Karner was out of line for
drawing such a strong conclusion from a single, controversial data
set.
mt
Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-A7E...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
> In article <bcaf804.04061...@posting.google.com>,
> m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>
> > It's about twenty years too late to be arguing on this point. Not that
> > that would stop anyone. (sigh)
>
Phil Hays
>Phil Hays wrote:
>> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>> I'm not surprised by your comments, James. People like you don't
>>> know the difference between a positive process gain and positive
>>> feedback.
>>
>> If the process gain was zero, what would the output be?
>
>If the process gain is zero, the output would be zero, as process gain is
>the ratio of output over input.
PH> X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
PH> This is a first order discrete time system. If k is negative, the
PH> feedback is negative. If k is positive, the feedback is positive.
PH> What range of k is stable?
CW> The answer is that "k" in your equation is equivalent to
CW> a positive process gain, not positive feedback.
So if k is zero:
X(t+1) := Y(t)
or the output is equal to the input after a unit time delay.
>> If the feedback was zero, what would the output be?
>
>That depends on what the input is, and what the transfer function is.
Exactly.
X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
"k" is the feedback term. Right?
So again, over what range of k is the system stable?
>> Does that shoe leather taste nice?
>You know, Phil, it is becoming obvious to me that the jargon used by most
>members of this NG is distinctly different than expected. In addition,
>since there are at least 50 years of established process control theory
Can we agree on definations from _Modern Control Engineering_ by
Ogata:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-5888570-7249527
and
>jargon, it would be nice if you considered that adoption of an established
>jargon would be beneficial to furthering your global-warming/climate-change
>goals of educating the public (if you have such goals). If anyone in the
>future ever starts thinking about process control of global mean
>temperature, the conflict between your choice of jargon and the process
>control community is going to make it very difficult for you and the process
>control guys to understand each other.
>
>Just a suggestion.
>
charliew2
OK, Phil. You be the controller, and act like the controller I talked
about. If the speed drops below your desired value, let up on the
accelerator pedal. If the speed goes above your desired value, push down on
the accelerator pedal. Also, the size of your "move" must be proportional
to the error. Try it, and get back to me.
> All implementable
> feedback systems will have an error between the desired and actual
> output.
That is why there is an integral term in a PI controller - to eliminate
offset relative to setpoint.
> It is true that your "cruise control" with positive feedback
> will have a larger steady state error ("DC") than a "cruise control"
> that just sets the throttle to a fixed value. It might, however, have
> less dynamic error ("AC"), because it might be more stable. Showing
> this requires some more involved math, or a computer model of a
> system, or an experiment with the right real system.
>
Gee, Phil, you really don't have a clue, do you? I suspect that all of your
process control experience is from a textbook, and none of it is from the
real world.
(cut)
I'm not going to argue the fine points with you anymore Phil. If you really
believe what you say, there's nothing I can say that will convince you.
Phil Hays
Well, can you? Do you agree that the feedback term "k" can be
positive and the resulting system be stable? Could you write a
similar equation with a non-unity process gain?
>>>>>> I'll start by giving a few free hints:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> k < -1 is unstable. Try -1.1 and find out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> k = .1 is quite stable. Try it and find out. This is a simple
>>>>>> example that anyone that can add and multiply can verify for
>>>>>> themselves that positive feedback does not meen runaway.
>>>>
>>>> Did you verify that positive k was stable, at least for k = .1?
>>
>> Well, did you?
Well, did you verify this?
>> All implementable
>> feedback systems will have an error between the desired and actual
>> output.
>
>That is why there is an integral term in a PI controller - to eliminate
>offset relative to setpoint.
The integral term eliminates DC offset, however, there will still be a
dynamic or AC error.
>Gee, Phil, you really don't have a clue, do you?
Oh, let me check.... Yes, I just got a fresh shipment in. How many do
you want to buy? I also have a good supply of hints, always just
fifty cents for a good customer like you.
>I'm not going to argue the fine points with you anymore Phil. If you really
>believe what you say, there's nothing I can say that will convince you.
Fine points? That's a joke, for this is such a simple and basic
example, none of them hard to understand or subtle. Just find the
range of k where the following equation is stable:
X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
No fine point there, no sir. Just some basic math, well within anyone
with a high school education.
charliew2
> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>> Phil Hays wrote:
>>> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>>> I'm not surprised by your comments, James. People like you don't
>>>> know the difference between a positive process gain and positive
>>>> feedback.
>>>
>>> If the process gain was zero, what would the output be?
>>
>> If the process gain is zero, the output would be zero, as process
>> gain is the ratio of output over input.
>
>
>
>
> So if k is zero:
>
> X(t+1) := Y(t)
>
> or the output is equal to the input after a unit time delay.
>
>
>>> If the feedback was zero, what would the output be?
>>
>> That depends on what the input is, and what the transfer function is.
>
> Exactly.
>
> X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
>
> "k" is the feedback term. Right?
>
> So again, over what range of k is the system stable?
>
>
>>> Does that shoe leather taste nice?
>
>> You know, Phil, it is becoming obvious to me that the jargon used by
>> most members of this NG is distinctly different than expected. In
>> addition, since there are at least 50 years of established process
>> control theory
>
> Can we agree on definations from _Modern Control Engineering_ by
> Ogata:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-5888570-7249527
I'll have a look and let you know. My books are by Deshpande and Ash, and
Stephanopoulos, and they don't seem to use the same nomenclature that your
refrence does.
(cut)
charliew2
>
> Can we agree on definations from _Modern Control Engineering_ by
> Ogata:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-5888570-7249527
Phil, I found the book at Amazon, but I don't intend to buy it just to look
up the definitions. However, a search through Google for "positive
feedback", and a search within results for "control systems", gave me
results which listed at least two different definitions of positive
feedback. All along, I had assumed that there was just one commonly
accepted definition. Obviously, this isn't true. Please post your
definition (from Ogata). Thanks.
Steve Schulin
This quote about models underestimating long-range persistence is from
Govindan et al ["Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed
Atmospheric Variability", Physical Review Letters 89:28501, 8 July
2002]. The long range to which it explicitly refers is on the scale of
ten years. Karner, however, explicitly refers to periods as short as two
months.
BTW, the full quote from Govindan et al is "Since the models
underestimate the long-range persistence of the atmosphere and
overestimate the trends, our analysis suggests that the anticipated
global warming is also overestimated by the models." That is their final
sentence in the paper, before the Thank yous and endnotes.
>
> [Persistency, for those who don't know and are reading this, can be
> described very basically as a measure of how recent increases effect
> future increases. So, if temperature has been going up recently, and
> that makes it more likely that it will go up in the future, then it's
> persistent.)
>
> Secondly, the Karner paper uses the MSU2 data of Christy et al. We
> already know that something is going on in this dataset that is not
> compatible with the model predictions. Karner shows that these data
> show antipersistency - as might be expected from the observation that
> the trend is flat. If CO2 is rising, yet the troposphere is not
> warming, then you would expect that there must be a negative feedback
> in operation - what Karner has done is to demonstrate the
> statistically.
The use of MSU data seems quite reasonably explained in this case. He
chose it not for climatic importance per se, but for its methodical
character, he says. Karner discusses Hurrell et al's comparison of MSU
with gridded sonde data [BAMS 81:2165]. The relevance of criticisms (of
Spencer and Christy's decadal trends) to the daily time series' analysis
by Karner is not as clear as the commenter suggests.
>
> Thirdly, he uses the solar data of Frohlich & Lean. Notably, this is
> the dataset that finds no increase in solar brightness over the past
> 20 years. i.e. it is incompatible with sceptic arguments. Karner finds
> that he persistency of this dataset is similar to that of MSU2.
Willson and Mordvinov's "Secular Total Solar Irradiance trend during
solar cycles 21-23" [Geophysical Research Letters 30(5):1199
doi:10.1029/2002GL016038, 2003] explains why Frohlich & Lean failed in
long term trending. It's not at all clear that the type of degradation
they describe would make a difference in the persistency findings of
Karner.
> What are we to make of all this? Well, firstly, when something
> perturbs the troposphere something acts to return it to normal. ...
This sounds like a statement of dominant negative feedback to me.
> ... This
> could, for example, result from el nino followed by la nina (which is
> probably the dominant annual-scale fluctuation in the troposphere. ...
Well, this seems rather underwhelming as an explanation for two-month
timescale cited by Karner.
> Cooling caused by Pinatubo was followed by warming as the effects wore
> off. Etc. There is, however, some persistency (since H>0).
Good point, albeit quite a small part of the record.
>
> The persistency is similar to the solar persistency. This is hard to
> interpret. What it doesn't mean is that there is any correlation
> between solar and MSU2 (there clearly isn't). ...
Karner's Fig. 4 shows a striking correlation, contrary to this comment.
Paragraph 50 concludes "Variability of the solar forcing is quite
accurately followed by tropospheric temperature anomaly. This is an
indication that the solar forcing variability is actually the governing
one among other existing (random or not) forcings in the Earth climate
system."
>... It means that the sun's
> output has a similar tendency to return to normal as MSU2. Maybe it's
> just coincidence. Maybe there is some complex reason for this - but
> Karner doesn't speculate!
What speculation is needed to see that the dominance of positive
feedback, embraced by IPCC, and previously espoused as a settled matter
by you, is flatly contradicted by the statistically significant (at p >
.95) data?
>
> ===
>
> end quote
>
> Thanks to Tom Rees of Brighton UK for this very helpful analysis.
>
> Let me say that I'm amazed that JGR let such a strong statement about
> IPCC into the final article. I think Karner was out of line for
> drawing such a strong conclusion from a single, controversial data
> set.
>
> mt
Other than voicing strong opinions, you don't give any hint that you
actually read the Karner paper before endorsing Dr. Rees' comments. I'm
curious whether you read this Karner paper before expressing opinion
that he was out of line.
>
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:<steve.schulin-A7E...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
> > In article <bcaf804.04061...@posting.google.com>,
> > m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote:
> >
> > > It's about twenty years too late to be arguing on this point. Not that
> > > that would stop anyone. (sigh)
> >
> > Fortunately, we have the last about 20 years experience to help
> > understand. Karner [J. Geophys. Res., 10.1029/2001JD002024, 2002]
> > concludes that negative feedback has dominated the climate system during
> > 1979-2001.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Phil Hays
>Phil Hays wrote:
>> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>(cut)
>>
>> Can we agree on definations from _Modern Control Engineering_ by
>> Ogata:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-5888570-7249527
>
>Phil, I found the book at Amazon, but I don't intend to buy it just to look
>up the definitions. However, a search through Google for "positive
>feedback", and a search within results for "control systems", gave me
>results which listed at least two different definitions of positive
>feedback. All along, I had assumed that there was just one commonly
>accepted definition.
X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
This is a first order discrete time system. If k is negative, the
feedback is negative. If k is positive, the feedback is positive.
What range of k is the system stable?
A very simple problem. Can't you solve it?
FerdiEgb
Charlie,
If there is a reaction of any system on an initial disturbance, then
this can be positive or negative. If the result of the reaction is not
going back to the original disturbed parameter ("open loop"), then it
is not of interest (in the case of climate), but may be used
"feedforward" to adjust other parameters to counter the effect (which
is used in many cases in the process industry). If the reaction
influences the disturbed parameter directly ("closed loop", see
http://www.tpub.com/content/doe/h1013v2/css/h1013v2_113.htm), then
this is a "feedback". That can be positive or negative too, depending
on the amplification factor of your equation. As long as this factor
is between -1 (negative feedback) and +1 (positive feedback) then the
total system remains stable.
To give an example, if the feedback amplification factor is as high as
0.5, then the values at different times, beginning at the original
disturbance looks like:
Initial disturbance: Y(t) = 1 °C
Feedback factor k = 0.5
X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
X(t+1) = 0.5 °C + 1 °C = 1.5 °C
X(t+2) = 0.75 °C + 1 °C = 1.75 °C
X(t+3) = 0.875 °C + 1 °C = 1.875 °C
etc...
At last, in infinitum, the initial disturbance in temperature doubled
with a feedback amplification factor of 0.5. But this still is stable.
The point is, what is the real amplification factor for water vapour
from an initial disturbance (either solar or GHG induced)? According
to a geologist (see:
http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/family/CVHE2001.htm):
"The water vapour feedback by Arrhenius is only a factor 1.3. This was
explained by him in 1901 and confirmed by Ramanatan and Vogelmann in
1997. Taking 3.7 W/m2 for CO2 doubling and the Stefan-Boltzmann
equation gives us 0.6833 degrees warming (Erren, 2002).
Including the water feedback gives 0.6833*1.3= 0.888 K Wich fits
beautifully in Douglas Hoyt's empirical range of 0.5 - 0.9 K for CO2
doubling."
Note that the factor 1.3 is the end result, not the amplification
factor, which is much smaller.
This doesn't include other feedbacks like cloud formation. In the
tropics (halve of the earth's surface), cloud formation and/or faster
circulation gives a negative feedback, some 2 W/m2 for an increase of
0.1 °C in SST, and some 7 W/m2 during an El Niño event. See:
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/publications/pub_exchange/Wielicki_et_al_2002.pdf
(fig. 2). This is not included in the current climate models. Compare
that to the some 4 W/m2 that a CO2 doubling should induce.
Pre-industrial changes in CO2 levels seem to have no measurable
influence on temperature in a 50 ppmv range, see:
http://www.ping.be/~ping5859/co2_temp_ice.html and as you can see, CO2
follows temperature changes, doesn't induce them...
Ferdinand
Steve Schulin
David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> > David Ball <wra...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote:
> >> Nothing of significance. As such, it was deleted. Perfesser,
> >> any time you want to get down and dirty and discuss the science just
> >> say the word. Of course, that will require you to understand the
> >> basics, be open to other viewpoints and admit when you are wrong,
> >> three things that you don't seem to have the ability to do.
> >> BTW, have you figured out how something that doesn't change,
> >> wobbles?
> >
> >In fact, the part you snipped was an illustration of how you, though
> >unwavering in your deceit, wobble on the application of tactics over
> >time.
> >
> >Very truly,
> >
> Why do you end your posts with this? You couldn't tell the
> truth if your life depended on it.
Happy Father's Day, Mr. Ball, to you and all the other Dads here.
Despite our differences of opinion, there's surely some common
sentiments amongst us that can be shared without rancor. One is the
virtually universal love parents have for their children, and the
corresponding desire to make the world a better place for them and
theirs.
Sincerely,
Steve Schulin
charliew2
> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>> Phil Hays wrote:
>>> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>> (cut)
>>>
>>> Can we agree on definations from _Modern Control Engineering_ by
>>> Ogata:
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-5888570-7249527
>>
>> Phil, I found the book at Amazon, but I don't intend to buy it just
>> to look up the definitions. However, a search through Google for
>> "positive feedback", and a search within results for "control
>> systems", gave me results which listed at least two different
>> definitions of positive feedback. All along, I had assumed that
>> there was just one commonly accepted definition.
>
> X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
>
> This is a first order discrete time system. If k is negative, the
> feedback is negative. If k is positive, the feedback is positive.
> What range of k is the system stable?
>
> A very simple problem. Can't you solve it?
Your nomenclature is different than what I have in my textbooks. However,
I'll take a guess. It looks to me like the system is stable for absolute
value of k less than 1.
charliew2
I agree. Happy Father's day to all.
Psalm 110
>
> Happy Father's Day, Mr. Ball, to you and all the other Dads here.
> Despite our differences of opinion, there's surely some common
> sentiments amongst us that can be shared without rancor. One is the
> virtually universal love parents have for their children, and the
> corresponding desire to make the world a better place for them and
> theirs.
> Steve Schulin
What a cheap ploy from a GLOBAL WARMING baby-killer -- yes there are
dad's who are sociopaths, who kill all their children and their wife,
then themselves. There are guys going to prison for child abuse every
day of the year.
People who love their children OBEY the Precautionary Principle, and
do not gamble with their children's environment.
AFTER you have demonstrated responsibility to the next generation, MR.
nuclear.com, BY DISPOSING THE ACCUMULATED NUCLEAR WASTES WE ALREADY
HAVE BACKED UP, then you may be considered a FORMER-sociopath.
Meanwhile you promote the position of paid liars from the Pollution
and Poison Industry, as if they were credible instead of proven
corrupt, and you have not yet evaluated the evidence which withstood
due process of law once in courtrooms already and found to be
incriminatting evidence of conspiracy.
http://sciencecop.joeuser.com/index.asp?c=1
http://sciencecop.joeuser.com/bloglist.asp
http://sciencecop.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=18766
In 1993-1994 AdTI assembled a team of the most corrupt people working
in science to obscure the health hazards of smoking and second-hand
smoke from cigarettes. Many of the AdTI team players are still active
to this very day taking huge payments from various dirty industries to
confuse issues and smear the reputations of their opposition. Records
preserved after the great multi-billion-dollar lost federal lawsuit
cases by the tobacco industry are now online exposing the dirty tricks
played in secrecy back then. A network of science-villians was forged
by big-tobacco, and assembled by AdTI into a permanent cancer on
society. AdTI drove the getaway car for corporate serial murderers.
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, which has often been little more
than a post office box and some fly-by-night rented offices, forever
lost its credibility, forever lost its right to participate in
American dialog, by devoting itself to intentional fraudulent
subversion of the American people.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TI31749097-9099.html
"Issue Report Environmental Protection Agency's Science", Date: 25 Sep
1993, Length: 3 pages By Jonathan Tolman and Cesar Conda. (Cesar V.
Conda was Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's Executive Director;
Jonathan Tolman was visting fellow of Alexis de Tocqueville
Institution -- this is an AdTI report.)
http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756102-6120.html
"the Epa and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke", Date: 1994
Length: 19 pages (draft of pre-publication report found in Lorillard
Tobacco Company files)
by Dr. S. Fred Singer, Professor of Environmental Sciences (on leave),
University of Virginia, and Senior Fellow Alexis de Tocqueville
Institution, and Mr. Kent Jeffreys, Adjunct Scholar Alexis de
Tocqueville Institution.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756807-6876.html
"Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
A Research Report Conducted by the Alexis De Tocqueville Institution"
Date: 11 Aug 1994, Length: 70 pages
Academic Advisory Board -- Dr. Gary Anderson, Professor of Economics,
California State University-Northridge -- Dr. Nancy Bord (Yonge),
Visiting Scholar, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University -- Dr.
Gordon L. Brady, Associate Professor and Director Environmental
Studies, Sweet Briar College -- Dr. Jeffrey Clark, Professor of
Economics, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga -- Dr. Michael Darby,
Professor of Economics, and Director John M. Olin Center for Policy,
University of California, Los Angeles -- Dr. Robert Ekelund, Lowder
Eminent Scholar, Auburn University -- Dr. Michael Gough, Project
Director, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment -- Dr. William
Hazeltine, Environmental Consultant -- Dr. Thomas Hopkins, Gosnell
Professor of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology -- Dr.
Dwight R. Lee, Ramsey Professor of Economics, University of Georgia --
Dr. Michael Marlow, Professor of Economics, California State
Polytechnic University-San Luis Obispo -- Dr. Thomas Gale Moore,
Senior Fellow The Hoover Institution, Stanford University -- Dr.
Malcolm Ross, Research Mineralogist U.S. Geological Survey -- Dr. S.
Fred Singer Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University
of Virginia and President Science and Environmental Policy Project
(SEPP) -- Dr. Gerhard Stohrer, Director of Chemical Risk Program,
Science and Environmental Policy Project, and former Department Head
Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research -- Dr. Mark Thornton,
Professor of Economics Auburn University -- Dr. Robert D. Tollison,
Duncan Black Professor of Economics and Director Center for the Study
of Public Choice, George Mason University -- Dr. Richard Vedder,
Professor of Economics, University of Ohio -- Dr. Richard Wagner,
Professor of Economics and Chairman, Department of Economics, George
Mason University
Author: Kent Jeffreys,
Principal Reviewer: Dr. S. Fred Singer,
Senior Staff and Contributing Associates:
Rachael Applegate, Bruce Bartlett, Merrick Carey, Cesar Conda, Gregory
Fossedal, Dave Juday, Felix Rouse, Aaron Stevens.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIMN0339276-9278.html
Tobacco Institute "Communications Efforts September 1988", Date: Sep
1988, Length: 3 pages
Media Tours by Consultants
-- "Social Cost" media tours by George Mason University economists
Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner were launched in September in
Richmond, VA and Tulsa, OK. These tours discuss the Tollison/Wagner.
book, Smoking and the State, and the issues surrounding the misuse of
"social costs." Enclosed you will find the press kit used with the
media and reports on the press generated by the tour.
Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner were corrupt on the day they sat in
on the "impartial peer-review" of "Science, Economics, and
Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination, A Research Report
Conducted by the Alexis De Tocqueville Institution"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2501254705-4708.html
Proposal for the Organisation of the Whitecoat Project, Date: 22 Feb
1988 (est.), Length: 4 pages
SUMMARY OF THE WHITECOAT PROJECT
The Project is designed to support market-level ETS programmes within
the PM EEMA and EEC markets. The Objectives of these overall ETS
programmes are defined as:-
End Goals:
- Resist and roll back smoking restrictions.
- Restore smoker confidence.
Pre-requisites:
- Reverse scientific and popular misconception that ETS is harmful.
- Restore social acceptability of smoking.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2023856052-6057.html
The ETS Program for 1991, Date: 1990 (est.), Length: 6 pages
"Science Objectives" were estimated to cost a whopping $16,688,400 and
included "Develop and support activities and research which maintain
the controversy..." about secondhand smoke and "Maintain research
activity...to provide support for our position."
Among the "Science Objectives" were "Develop[ing] and support[ing]
activities and research which maintain the controversy" about tobacco
smoke.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIOK0003644.html
Date: 31 Jan 1989, Length: 1 page
Professional fees and expenses paid Dwight Lee and Robert Tollison
$8,421.37. Up to nearly a million dollars per year budget is shared by
a half-dozen "whitecoats" deception agents in Tobacco Institute
budgetary records of this time period.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0536080-6087.html
Robert D. Tollison received these check numbers:
page 6:
Cumulative General Ledger the Tobacco Institute Inc. Period Ending
09-30-87
* Robert D. Tollison Check #42538 87-MAR-30 $16,450
* Robert D. Tollison Check #44247 87-MAY-29 $14,075
page 7:
* Robert D. Tollison Check #45160 87-JUL-07 $27,388
* Robert D. Tollison Check #45717 87-JUL-22 $7,750 (Totals paid over 5
months = $65,663.)
Gary Anderson - Tobacco Industry stealth consultant 1988-1996 --
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIDN0018432-8476.html (Tobacco
Institute) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/71008079.html (American
Tobacco Company) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIOK0021837-1844.html
(Tobacco Institute) --
http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/88116221-6224.html (Tobacco Institute)
-- http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/71081376.html (American Tobacco
Company) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/71081377.html (American
Tobacco Company) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/86015105-5117.html
(Lorillard Tobacco Company) --
http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/86015122-5123.html (Lorillard Tobacco
Company) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92761030-1042.html
(Lorillard Tobacco Company) --
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIDN0006954-6958.html (Tobacco
Institute) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIDN0011871-1904.html
(Tobacco Institute) --
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIDN0005687-5689.html (Tobacco
Institute) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0536332-6369.html
(Tobacco Institute) --
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0536164-6203.html (Tobacco
Institute) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0538126-8164.html
(Tobacco Institute) --
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIDN0017394-7432.html (Tobacco
Institute) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TI16551799-1815.html The
Tobacco Institute -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074211106.html
(Philip Morris) --
Another CORRUPT link in the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution chain of
frauds -- Gordon Macklin, who was director during WorldCom's
$9,000,000,000.00 stock-manipulations frauds. Macklin did NOTHING
while WorldCom was looted, and he has done NOTHING to stop the
Microsoft-benefits of fraulent Ken Brown-AdTI attacks on
community-created public-spirited software that allows citizens free
choice to escape the Microsoft monopoly on operating systems and
productivity softwares. Brown has been caught telling lies, and it is
Macklin's legal duty to retract Brown's statements, fire Brown, and
apologize to the injured public.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2003-06-10-worldcomboard_x.htm
...
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
Phil Hays
>Phil Hays wrote:
>> X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
>>
>> This is a first order discrete time system. If k is negative, the
>> feedback is negative. If k is positive, the feedback is positive.
>> What range of k is the system stable?
>I'll take a guess. It looks to me like the system is stable for absolute
>value of k less than 1.
So then we agree that positive feedback does not imply a unstable
system?
David Ball
<Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote:
>"Geoff" <gghi...@nospam.ca> wrote in news:cav2bo$4tg$1...@news.ucalgary.ca:
>
>> "Ian St. John" <ist...@noemail.ca> wrote in message
>
>>> http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html
>>> Table 2.2 Contributions of atmospheric ratiation absorbers
>>> to thermal trapping
>>>
>>> Species removed % trapped radiation remaining
>>> All 0
>>> H2O CO2 O3 50
>>> H2O 64
>>> Clouds 86
>>> CO2 88
>>> O3 97
>>> None 100
>>> Data from Rev. Geophys. & Space Sci. 16 (1978) 465
>>
>> Given this set of numbers what is the response to the argument that
>> since C02 is such a small fraction of the greenhouse gas potential
>> (from my reading O3 is about twice as efficient as H2O, CO2 about 35%
>> more efficient) and that there is nothing to do about water vapour
>> anyway, why spend so much time, effort and resources on something that
>> accounts for a very small percentage of the atmosphere's capacity to
>> create a greenhouse effect?
>
>That is a bogus argument created by people who just don't want to do
>anything about climate change, often because they are in the business of
>emitting CO2.
Look at it from the public's perspective, a public that can
only view it in the most simplistic terms: this is a very compelling
argument. It's wrong, but that doesn't matter. If your goal is to fool
a majority of a scientifically uneducated populace, this is exactly
the kind of argument you make.
Robert Grumbine
charliew2 <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>> but warm air in general contains more water so a small warming from
>> CO2 will be amplified as the water contents of the atmosphere
>> increases.
>
>Thomas, water vapor is definitely different than CO2. Water vapor acts as a
>heat transfer medium, meaning that it condenses several thousand feed up in
>the atmosphere, releasing its heat of vaporization as it radiates IR
>radiation into outer space. It also forms clouds as it is condensing,
>increasing the albedo of earth. The point? Everyone focuses ONLY on the
>fact that water vapor is a positive feedback relative to CO2 increases. In
>point of fact, if this logic were true, ANY small temperature increase would
>cause a fairly quick and rapid positive feedback runaway in global
>temperatures. In my opinion, it's time to consider that there are also
>negative feedbacks involved regarding water vapor.
Not to be unkind, but ... duh!
Climate modellers have known about that since day one. It is
yet another reason that water vapor is given its own treatment.
CO2 and other 'dry' greenhouse gases can be treated differently
as they don't go through phase changes within the climate system.
But water is very annoying and difficult precisely because it does
go through all 3 phases.
Of course water _vapor_ does not do that. As _vapor_ it is
strictly a greenhouse gas. It's only when the phase change is
permitted (considered) that water has those negative feedbacks.
Then again, some of them are positive feedbacks.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
charliew2
> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>> Phil Hays wrote:
>
>>> X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
>>>
>>> This is a first order discrete time system. If k is negative, the
>>> feedback is negative. If k is positive, the feedback is positive.
>>> What range of k is the system stable?
>
>> I'll take a guess. It looks to me like the system is stable for
>> absolute value of k less than 1.
>
> So then we agree that positive feedback does not imply a unstable
> system?
Given your definition of positive feedback, yes. However, note that your
definition is not the only accepted definition.
Michael Tobis
> Other than voicing strong opinions, you don't give any hint that you
> actually read the Karner paper before endorsing Dr. Rees' comments. I'm
> curious whether you read this Karner paper before expressing opinion
> that he was out of line.
I haven't done more than find it, look it over, and Google for
discussion of it.
I did not think such a thing should go unchallenged. Rees's analysis
seemd good enough for me to post it.
I don't know if you are retired, or simply a full-time paid advocate
for a political position.
I don't think of myself as an advocate for anything other than that
the consensus scientific opinion be treated as the consensus. I have
tremendous respect for the IPCC members I have met and those whose
work I have studied, and for the IPCC process. I advocate that the
IPCC get the respect it deserves, because I think I'm morally obliged
to do so.
I'm paid to be a researcher, not an advocate. I don't have a lot of
time to put into papers that are peripheral to my group's interests:
paleoclimate modeling, ocean GCMs, and software engineering of models
with objective model tests and tuning.
So if someone else has some criticisms of Karner, I'd prefer to see
them raised rather than leaving your attribution unchallenged. I'm
confident that if someone had actually falsified IPCC, I'd have
already heard of it, so I wasn't surprised to find some criticism,
which I found cogent and plausible.
There are subtle statistical issues raised by your questions. I'm not
sure which of them are being raised correctly by you. It may take me
some time to figure it out, and I'm not sure that would be time well
spent.
Here's my thinking on the paper so far.
In particular Rees correctly asserts that a match in persistency
spectra is not a correlation. Certainly, two totally independent
stochastic processes may have the same spectrum, so that sounds
plausible to me. It seems to me that you are falling back to saying
"look, they're obviously similar" and claiming that's a
cross-correlation between the time series.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the short-term time series of
solar variability and the short-term time series of global mean
temperature *were* strongly correlated. Why shouldn't they be? It's
just that similar spectra doesn't prove it. (The spectra shown in the
paper aren't all that strikingly similar; really just common 'red"
spectra.)
On the other hand, I may be wrong but it seems to me at first blush
there are two reasons why this approach is not going to say anything
about the sensitivity to greenhouse forcing.
First, as mentioned above, it uses the MSU time series record, an
instrument which was not designed to obtain long-duration series.
(There are other reasons to do earth observations besides climate
change.) The long-term drift of the instrument is very much in doubt.
The engineers who designed it will tell you so. The Spencer-Christy
interpretation is just one among several MSU data records, and happens
to be the one showing the least drift. Therefore anything this paper
says about long-term variability is just one estimate among many, and
the one that would be chosen to eliminate any long-term trend.
Compounding this, the data used are global in scale. It seems to me
that this means the approach is one which essentially does not capture
any information about local water vapor feedback, which would be
necessary to draw any conclusions about water vapor feedback from the
short term variability.
mt
Robert Grumbine
... and, per Charlie, Venus has a stable climate.
That a system is stable in a (mathematically) global sense does not
mean it's going to be _desirable_. For any future earth system in
which the earth receives the majority of its energy from the sun and
radiates back to space, the climate is 'stable' and always will be --
in the sense that there is a finite upper bound temperature imposed by
T^4.
Of course, that's a totally useless notion of stability. More to the
point, perhaps, it is not the notion of stability used in control
theory, one of Charlie's claimed areas of knowledge.
charliew2
Yea, right Robert. You and your sci.environment "buddies" have already
admitted that the models are not good enough to allow control theory to be
used on the GW problem. So, where does that fact leave you?
Robert Grumbine
charliew2 <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>Robert Grumbine wrote:
>> In article <Xns950DD57E59A5CT...@212.83.64.229>,
>> Thomas Palm <Thoma...@chello.removethis.se> wrote:
[snip]
>>> The situation isn't inherently stable, though. Given a sufficiently
>>> strong positive feedback there will be a runaway effect. Fortunately
>>> we don't seem to be close to any such point at the moment, but there
>>> is nothing inherently impossible that it could happen. It did, after
>>> all, happen on Venus.
>>
>> ... and, per Charlie, Venus has a stable climate.
>>
>> That a system is stable in a (mathematically) global sense does not
>> mean it's going to be _desirable_. For any future earth system in
>> which the earth receives the majority of its energy from the sun and
>> radiates back to space, the climate is 'stable' and always will be --
>> in the sense that there is a finite upper bound temperature imposed by
>> T^4.
>>
>> Of course, that's a totally useless notion of stability. More to
>> the point, perhaps, it is not the notion of stability used in control
>> theory, one of Charlie's claimed areas of knowledge.
>
>Yea, right Robert. You and your sci.environment "buddies" have already
>admitted that the models are not good enough to allow control theory to be
>used on the GW problem. So, where does that fact leave you?
The fact that you just said that leaves me with the fact that
you are lying.
I have said no such thing about the models, or about control theory.
It is _you_ who has said that the models are inadequate, not me.
Steve Schulin
m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote:
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:<steve.schulin-727...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
> > Other than voicing strong opinions, you don't give any hint that you
> > actually read the Karner paper before endorsing Dr. Rees' comments. I'm
> > curious whether you read this Karner paper before expressing opinion
> > that he was out of line.
>
> I haven't done more than find it, look it over, and Google for
> discussion of it.
>
> I did not think such a thing should go unchallenged. Rees's analysis
> seemd good enough for me to post it.
>
> I don't know if you are retired, or simply a full-time paid advocate
> for a political position.
>
> I don't think of myself as an advocate for anything other than that
> the consensus scientific opinion be treated as the consensus. I have
> tremendous respect for the IPCC members I have met and those whose
> work I have studied, and for the IPCC process. I advocate that the
> IPCC get the respect it deserves, because I think I'm morally obliged
> to do so.
>
> I'm paid to be a researcher, not an advocate. I don't have a lot of
> time to put into papers that are peripheral to my group's interests:
> paleoclimate modeling, ocean GCMs, and software engineering of models
> with objective model tests and tuning.
>
> So if someone else has some criticisms of Karner, I'd prefer to see
> them raised rather than leaving your attribution unchallenged. ...
Me too. My question (about whether you had actually read the paper
before endorsing Dr. Rees' comments and expressing opinion that Karner
was out of line) was in no way a complaint about your posting of his
criticisms.
> ... I'm
> confident that if someone had actually falsified IPCC, I'd have
> already heard of it, so I wasn't surprised to find some criticism,
> which I found cogent and plausible.
These are understandable reactions. Your previous apparent endorsement
and expressed opinion, however, went well beyond an observation about
plausibity. They demonstrate a specific lack of respect for Dr. Karner
quite in contrast to the respect you so eloquently describe above.
I note that the IPCC process has not yet been brought to bear in
assessing Dr. Karner's 2002 paper. And although many non-climatologists
are involved in the IPCC process, I don't imagine that you equate Dr.
Rees' comments with the output of the so-called consensus approach. The
Karner paper did presumably go through the peer review process at the
mainstream climate-related JGR. Your expressed opinion thus seems to
show a readiness to bad-mouth some of your atmospheric science
colleagues based on the cogent and plausible comments of a
microbiologist who, for all you know, may not have skimmed the paper any
less briefly than you.
> There are subtle statistical issues raised by your questions. I'm not
> sure which of them are being raised correctly by you. It may take me
> some time to figure it out, and I'm not sure that would be time well
> spent.
I laud your skepticism of my comments, and respectfully urge you to
apply that same reasoning in acknowledging that the only person who's
demonstrated being "out of line" as you call it in this subthread is
you. Not Karner. Not his peer reviewers. Not me.
>
> Here's my thinking on the paper so far.
>
> In particular Rees correctly asserts that a match in persistency
> spectra is not a correlation. Certainly, two totally independent
> stochastic processes may have the same spectrum, so that sounds
> plausible to me. It seems to me that you are falling back to saying
> "look, they're obviously similar" and claiming that's a
> cross-correlation between the time series.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the short-term time series of
> solar variability and the short-term time series of global mean
> temperature *were* strongly correlated. Why shouldn't they be? It's
> just that similar spectra doesn't prove it. (The spectra shown in the
> paper aren't all that strikingly similar; really just common 'red"
> spectra.)
Even if everything you say, in these two paragraphs above, is given full
sway, Karner's finding of negative feedback as dominant remains
untouched. I don't think they should be given full sway, however, and
may revisit them below or in a separate post focused on Karner's finding
about the role of solar forcing in global temperature time series.
> On the other hand, I may be wrong but it seems to me at first blush
> there are two reasons why this approach is not going to say anything
> about the sensitivity to greenhouse forcing.
>
> First, as mentioned above, it uses the MSU time series record, an
> instrument which was not designed to obtain long-duration series.
> (There are other reasons to do earth observations besides climate
> change.) The long-term drift of the instrument is very much in doubt.
> The engineers who designed it will tell you so. The Spencer-Christy
> interpretation is just one among several MSU data records, and happens
> to be the one showing the least drift. Therefore anything this paper
> says about long-term variability is just one estimate among many, and
> the one that would be chosen to eliminate any long-term trend.
Karner looks at the variation in each day's data, compared to the day
before. Your focus on long term drift, even if your comments about long
term drift itself are absolutely accurate, seems inappropriate. As to
the implications of Karner's choice of which MSU dataset to use, I note
that neither of the two more recent analyses were even published by the
time that Marner's paper was accepted. The only other analysis I know of
is Prabhakara et al., which wasn't updated for years. I hope Karner's
work prompts investigation of all the available datasets, but his
finding of dominant negative feedback to temperature change in bulk
troposphere seems to have empirical advantage over the contrary
hypothesis embraced by the major climate modeling shops and IPCC.
> Compounding this, the data used are global in scale. It seems to me
> that this means the approach is one which essentially does not capture
> any information about local water vapor feedback, which would be
> necessary to draw any conclusions about water vapor feedback from the
> short term variability.
I don't follow your reasoning here. The MSU sees bulk temperature change
regardless of the source. That some feedback is positive certainly does
not contradict Karner's conclusion that negative feedback has dominated
the climate system for many years. I don't know of anybody who denies
that warmer air holds more water or who denies that, all else being
equal, more water in the air would then produce positive temperature
feedback. But the big question is net feedback. I've read a lot of
studies in recent years addressing the question of feedback, and don't
recall any that are as persuasive as Karner's. One that I've seen cited
as the most persuasive evidence to date for positive feedback was Soden
et al's comparison of water vapor and temperature during a period after
Pintubo eruption [Science 296:727, 2002]. It too used Spencer &
Christy's MSU data, BTW.
>
> mt
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Thomas Palm
news:10de8fb...@corp.supernews.com:
> already admitted that the models are not good enough to allow control
> theory to be used on the GW problem. So, where does that fact leave
> you?
I've stated that we can't control climate in the way that we know what is
going to happen if we kick it hard enough, and that leaves me very scared.
It's like experimenting with your air supply while diving, or tinkering
with your brakes driving 80 mph on the highway.
FerdiEgb
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-727...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
>
> I'm paid to be a researcher, not an advocate. I don't have a lot of
> time to put into papers that are peripheral to my group's interests:
> paleoclimate modeling, ocean GCMs, and software engineering of models
> with objective model tests and tuning.
>
What happens with the model results if you "enhance" solar variability
with some factor four-five and reduce the influence of CO2 and sulfate
aerosols with some factor four? As far as I learned, solar influences
are implied in the models as only the change in insolation, but the
variation in the UV range and hence its stratospheric influence is
much larger than of insolation alone...
[snipped]
> On the other hand, I may be wrong but it seems to me at first blush
> there are two reasons why this approach is not going to say anything
> about the sensitivity to greenhouse forcing.
>
> First, as mentioned above, it uses the MSU time series record, an
> instrument which was not designed to obtain long-duration series.
> (There are other reasons to do earth observations besides climate
> change.) The long-term drift of the instrument is very much in doubt.
> The engineers who designed it will tell you so. The Spencer-Christy
> interpretation is just one among several MSU data records, and happens
> to be the one showing the least drift. Therefore anything this paper
> says about long-term variability is just one estimate among many, and
> the one that would be chosen to eliminate any long-term trend.
There are similar problems with the surface data too. There are
different statistical approaches to the data series, which give
largely different (all positive) trends for the past 20 years. But
they all significantly differ with the two more or less reliable
interpretations of the satellite data (the two recent ones are
obviously based on errors), the radiosonde data and last but not
least, with several of the proxy data.
I have looked at several sets of proxy data, used by Mann in his
recent two millenia temperature reconstruction: they don't show an
upward trend...
>
> Compounding this, the data used are global in scale. It seems to me
> that this means the approach is one which essentially does not capture
> any information about local water vapor feedback, which would be
> necessary to draw any conclusions about water vapor feedback from the
> short term variability.
>
On global scale:
According to a geologist (see:
http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/family/CVHE2001.htm):
"The water vapour feedback by Arrhenius is only a factor 1.3. This was
explained by him in 1901 and confirmed by Ramanatan and Vogelmann in
1997. Taking 3.7 W/m2 for CO2 doubling and the Stefan-Boltzmann
equation gives us 0.6833 degrees warming (Erren, 2002).
Including the water feedback gives 0.6833*1.3= 0.888 K Wich fits
beautifully in Douglas Hoyt's empirical range of 0.5 - 0.9 K for CO2
doubling."
Note that the factor 1.3 is the end result, not the amplification
factor, which is much smaller.
This doesn't include other feedbacks like cloud formation. In the
tropics (halve of the earth's surface), cloud formation and/or faster
circulation gives a negative feedback, some 2 W/m2 for an increase of
0.1 °C in SST, and some 7 W/m2 during an El Niño event. See:
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/csrl/publications/pub_exchange/Wielicki_et_al_2002.pdf
(fig. 2). This is an effective negative feedback, compare that to the
some 4 W/m2 that a CO2 doubling should induce.
Pre-industrial changes in CO2 levels seem to have no measurable
influence on temperature in a 50 ppmv range, see:
http://www.ping.be/~ping5859/co2_temp_ice.html
Ferdinand
Phil Hays
If you have a defination of "positive feedback" that doesn't apply to
k being positive in the above equation, I'll be interested.
So now back to climate. Water provides net positive feedback to
temperature. To quote Thomas Palm:
" We may not be able to control water vapor directly, but warm air in
general contains more water so a small warming from CO2 will be
amplified as the water contents of the atmosphere increases. It is a
lot more useful to consider the question: will adding more CO2 cause
enough climate change to be a problem, and the answer to that question
is yes."
Phil Hays
>> mean it's going to be _desirable_. For any future earth system in
>> which the earth receives the majority of its energy from the sun and
>> radiates back to space, the climate is 'stable' and always will be --
>> in the sense that there is a finite upper bound temperature imposed by
>> T^4.
>>
>> Of course, that's a totally useless notion of stability. More to
>> the point, perhaps, it is not the notion of stability used in control
>> theory, one of Charlie's claimed areas of knowledge.
>
>Yea, right Robert. You and your sci.environment "buddies" have already
>admitted that the models are not good enough to allow control theory to be
>used on the GW problem. So, where does that fact leave you?
Like me, for example, just who proposed a climate control system last
week? Where does that leave me?
--
Phil Hays
Phil_hays at posting domain should work for email
Clues for sale or rent,
hints for just fifty cents.
No trolls, no spam, no twits.
Only fools smoke them cigarettes.
Josh Halpern
FerdiEgb wrote:
>m...@3planes.com (Michael Tobis) wrote in message news:<bcaf804.04062...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-727...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>>
>>
>>
>[part snipped]
>
>
>>I'm paid to be a researcher, not an advocate. I don't have a lot of
>>time to put into papers that are peripheral to my group's interests:
>>paleoclimate modeling, ocean GCMs, and software engineering of models
>>with objective model tests and tuning.
>>
>>
>>
>
>What happens with the model results if you "enhance" solar variability
>with some factor four-five and reduce the influence of CO2 and sulfate
>aerosols with some factor four? As far as I learned, solar influences
>are implied in the models as only the change in insolation, but the
>variation in the UV range and hence its stratospheric influence is
>much larger than of insolation alone...
>
Assuming you want to talk about increasing UV other than the fact that
the change is what you expect from the record CO2 + the observed solar
variability, that leaves you with the problem of getting the excess UV
energy from the ozone layer where it would be absorbed down into the
troposphere. Remember that the effective height from which the earth
radiates to space is well below the tropopause. Interestingly, what
change there is in the visible is negative, which would correspond to
less energy deposited in the troposphere (very slight, and difficult
to jucge from the Figure below which is on a log scale)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
josh halpern
David Ball
wrote:
LOL. So what? There's a reason that you've been told over and
over and over again that the only prudent course is to step back from
the precipice. What? Did you think we were lying to you? People say
that weather and climate aren't brain surgery. They're right. They're
one hell of a lot harder to understand. Comparing your understanding
of industrial control to weather and climate is like comparing Hot
Wheels to a Formula 1 race car. There is no shame in saying that we
don't know everything. What's really tragic is that you actually seem
to think it's a bad thing to be honest about what we don't know.
Michael Tobis
> My question (about whether you had actually read the paper
> before endorsing Dr. Rees' comments and expressing opinion that Karner
> was out of line) was in no way a complaint about your posting of his
> criticisms.
>
> > ... I'm
> > confident that if someone had actually falsified IPCC, I'd have
> > already heard of it, so I wasn't surprised to find some criticism,
> > which I found cogent and plausible.
>
> These are understandable reactions. Your previous apparent endorsement
> and expressed opinion, however, went well beyond an observation about
> plausibity. They demonstrate a specific lack of respect for Dr. Karner
> quite in contrast to the respect you so eloquently describe above.
I expressed no criticism of Karner, who to the extent I currently
understand the matter analyzed some data in an interesting way and
published a paper in a language of which he is not a native speaker.
For all I know, his statement about IPCC was made without the
sensitivity to the cultural implications.
In fact, it is not the policy of any journal to conclude every paper
with an assertion of whether the results are or are not consistent
with the consensus opinion on climate change or the IPCC. If it were
the case, one would find that the vast majority of papers bore little
direct bearing on the question, and so would be "not inconsistent",
while the majority of the remainder would be "consistent", with
roughly equal numbers of outliers in the Cassandra and Polyanna camps.
This is of course to be expected about a consensus.
> Your expressed opinion thus seems to
> show a readiness to bad-mouth some of your atmospheric science
> colleagues based on the cogent and plausible comments of a
> microbiologist who, for all you know, may not have skimmed the paper any
> less briefly than you.
Again, I expressed neither admiration nor its lack with regard to
Karner himself. I expressed only the concern about the statement
regarding IPCC, and dismay that it was allowed into print.
The reviewers should have realized that this one sentence would
provide ammunition for adversarial arguers; people who make up their
mind first and argue later; debaters rather than thinkers; lawyers
rather than scientists. Their failure to do so moves the paper out of
science and into politics, where we are now kicking it around. It is
this sentence that I criticize mostly.
I do, tentatively, agree with Rees that it's hard to imagine how such
a strong conclusion follows from the data. It seems to me that there
just aren't enough degrees of freedom in the global mean S&C
tropospheric temperature to say anything convincing about net feedback
on the time scale of interest to IPCC.
> I laud your skepticism of my comments, and respectfully urge you to
> apply that same reasoning in acknowledging that the only person who's
> demonstrated being "out of line" as you call it in this subthread is
> you. Not Karner. Not his peer reviewers. Not me.
The sentence about IPCC should have been removed by the reviewers, in
my opinion. If it had been, you would not have been provided any
additional ammunition for the argumentative stance
that lobbyists are taking.
Greenhouse gases are not a person and are not therefore innocent until
proven guilty. Public policy can never be based on certainty. Evidence
thrown about as if in a courtroom is therefore evidence misused.
The reviewers should have been sensitive to this. That they weren't is
to me, simply more evidence that the geophysical sciences are
profoundly apolitical to the point of naivete, contrary to the
assertions of lobbyists. The field is constantly muttering about the
failure of the public to grasp what they are saying. It's hardly
surprising under the circumstances.
We need to be vigilant about the organized campaign of obfuscation
that lies between the science and the policy. Allowing a provocative
statement about IPCC that can be used politically in a preliminary
result from a single researcher constitutes a fine example of the
failure of such vigilance in my opinion.
Let me concede that there is nothing necessarily factually wrong with
the statement. Karner's results in a literal sense "do not support"
the IPCC. It's simply inappropriate to have specific mention of IPCC
in such a paper in my opinion.
> > Compounding this, the data used are global in scale. It seems to me
> > that this means the approach is one which essentially does not capture
> > any information about local water vapor feedback, which would be
> > necessary to draw any conclusions about water vapor feedback from the
> > short term variability.
>
> I don't follow your reasoning here. The MSU sees bulk temperature change
> regardless of the source. That some feedback is positive certainly does
> not contradict Karner's conclusion that negative feedback has dominated
> the climate system for many years. I don't know of anybody who denies
> that warmer air holds more water or who denies that, all else being
> equal, more water in the air would then produce positive temperature
> feedback. But the big question is net feedback. I've read a lot of
> studies in recent years addressing the question of feedback, and don't
> recall any that are as persuasive as Karner's.
Persuasive means what? Convenient for your immutable position?
Karner's result is meaningless for the long term components of the
spectrum, because the long-term trend of the S&C interpretation of the
MSU is dubious.
At higher frequencies, which are also much faster that the GHG
forcing, global mean temperature excursions revert to the mean on a
radiative time scale. This doesn't strike me as surprising.
Explain how this has any bearing on the multiyear net (upper
troposphere) feedback and you'll have my attention. I will put some
time into the Karner paper if you can explain how this is possible or
find someone else who can. On the other hand, if you fail to make a
case that I find makes me reconsider my opinion, I'll simply concede
the last word in this thread to you.
> One that I've seen cited
> as the most persuasive evidence to date for positive feedback was Soden
> et al's comparison of water vapor and temperature during a period after
> Pintubo eruption [Science 296:727, 2002]. It too used Spencer &
> Christy's MSU data, BTW.
This is a more appropriate use of the S&C data because it's on a
shorter time scale than the instrument drift. Thanks for the pointer.
In any case, regardless of S&C, we don't live in the upper
troposphere. If S&C turns out to be the correct long-term upper
troposphere measurement (which seems unlikely), we would have evidence
of some unknown flaw in GCMs as respects the upper troposphere, but
the main impacts of climate change happen at the surface. "The"
feedback referred to S&C by Karner is of necessity not the feedback
that's important for policy purposes anyway, except for those of us
who live in the upper troposphere.
mt
Tom Rees
>
> Even if everything you say, in these two paragraphs above, is given full
> sway, Karner's finding of negative feedback as dominant remains
> untouched.
Hello, tis I. The problem with using Karner's paper to bolster the AGW
rejectionist position is that it tells us nothing new.
We know that Spencer & Christy's MSU2lt (S&C) has a very small positive
trend. We know that the fluctuations in the series are overwhelmingly larger
than the trend. Therefore, we know that any upward shift is pretty much
matched by a downward shift - and vice versa. That is what is meant, in this
context, by negative feedback.
So yes, Karner's analysis confirms that the S&C analysis shows no evidence
of warming. So what's new? What's all the fuss about?
If you were to study the RSS analysis of MSU2, you would probably also find
a large (although slightly lower) measure of antipersistency. This is
becuase, however you look at it, the fluctuations in tropospheric
temperatures are much larger than the trend.
Karner shows that solar irradiance shows a similar statistical pattern to
S&C. So what do you conclude from this? That negative feedback dominates the
solar spectrum? That the sun can't increase in temperature over scales
longer than 2 months?
That is not to say that Karner's paper is no good. On the contrary, it's a
solid analysis using an innovative technique. It's just that it adds nothing
to the argument propounded by AGW rejectionists.
Tom.
FAQ file: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/
Moderator: UKWW Climatology discussion
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forum-view.asp?forumid=11
w...@bas.ac.uk
>We know that Spencer & Christy's MSU2lt (S&C) has a very small positive
>trend.
No we don't. Its currently 0.083 oC/decade. Thats smaller than the others,
but ny no means "very small".
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
FerdiEgb
> FerdiEgb wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >What happens with the model results if you "enhance" solar variability
> >with some factor four-five and reduce the influence of CO2 and sulfate
> >aerosols with some factor four? As far as I learned, solar influences
> >are implied in the models as only the change in insolation, but the
> >variation in the UV range and hence its stratospheric influence is
> >much larger than of insolation alone...
> >
> Assuming you want to talk about increasing UV other than the fact that
> the change is what you expect from the record CO2 + the observed solar
> variability, that leaves you with the problem of getting the excess UV
> energy from the ozone layer where it would be absorbed down into the
> troposphere. Remember that the effective height from which the earth
> radiates to space is well below the tropopause. Interestingly, what
> change there is in the visible is negative, which would correspond to
> less energy deposited in the troposphere (very slight, and difficult
> to jucge from the Figure below which is on a log scale)
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
>
> josh halpern
>
Josh,
Thanks for the link, indeed the largest changes within a sun cycle are
in the UV/X-ray part of the spectrum, but if you look at the right
scale [(max-min)/min], the change in the visible part is less that
0.01%, while the change in extreme UV is around 300%, see:
http://www.apl.ucl.ac.uk/lectures/3c37/3c37-1.html :
"However, that small part of the solar spectrum in the EUV and XUV
regions shows a much larger variation with solar cycle. The UV varies
by 20% with solar cycle, and the XUV by factors up to 3 - the higher
energy on the whole the larger the variation. A good proxy for the EUV
variation is provided by the 10.7cm flux. This has been recorded for
many years and is a standard measure of solar activity used in
atmospheric and solar research"
The difference in amount of energy absorbed in the stratosphere may
change wind patterns at the tropopause. It seems to influence the
place where the jet stream is positioned:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010712cloudcover.html and the
amount of clouds on regional (USA: more clouds at solar maxima) and
global (less low level clouds at solar maxima) scale. The latter from
http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/kkk_asr_2004.pdf :
"The underlying assumption of a strong sensitivity of low cloud cover
to small changes in lower tropospheric static stability, suggested by
Klein and Hartmann (1993) was confirmed here, using independent data."
As (low) cloud cover has a tremendous effect on the energy balance,
the result of a small change in solar energy is amplified with a
factor up to five...
That means that in balance, the estimates for temperature to CO2
sensitivity and sulfate aerosol sensitivity must be reduced
accordingly, to maintain the overall result. The current estimates for
sulfate aerosol sensitivity anyway are way out of reality (detailed
explanation is for another message it is pretty late now), thus CO2
sensitivity was already overestimated...
Ferdinand
Josh Halpern
FerdiEgb wrote:
>Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>FerdiEgb wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What happens with the model results if you "enhance" solar variability
>>>with some factor four-five and reduce the influence of CO2 and sulfate
>>>aerosols with some factor four? As far as I learned, solar influences
>>>are implied in the models as only the change in insolation, but the
>>>variation in the UV range and hence its stratospheric influence is
>>>much larger than of insolation alone...
>>>
>>>
>>Assuming you want to talk about increasing UV other than the fact that
>>the change is what you expect from the record CO2 + the observed solar
>>variability, that leaves you with the problem of getting the excess UV
>>energy from the ozone layer where it would be absorbed down into the
>>troposphere. Remember that the effective height from which the earth
>>radiates to space is well below the tropopause. Interestingly, what
>>change there is in the visible is negative, which would correspond to
>>less energy deposited in the troposphere (very slight, and difficult
>>to jucge from the Figure below which is on a log scale)
>>
>>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/sunbathing/sunspectrum.htm
>>
>>
>>
>
>Josh,
>
>Thanks for the link, indeed the largest changes within a sun cycle are
>in the UV/X-ray part of the spectrum, but if you look at the right
>scale [(max-min)/min], the change in the visible part is less that
>0.01%, while the change in extreme UV is around 300%, see:
>http://www.apl.ucl.ac.uk/lectures/3c37/3c37-1.html :
>
Couldn't he afford new crayons?? or is pay in the UK that low for academics?
However the extreme UV is absorbed even higher, maybe the top of the
stratosphere, certainly by 30 km or so. The O2 continuum absorption
starts below 240 nm. The part involved with the Hertzberg bands are
very weak, maybe 10^-23 to 10^-24 cm^2/molecule. Below 200 nm with the
onset of the Schumann Runge, the absorption takes off. Essentially
everything will be absorbed by the stratopause.
>"However, that small part of the solar spectrum in the EUV and XUV
>regions shows a much larger variation with solar cycle.
>
Which does not even get into the stratosphere.
> The UV varies by 20% with solar cycle, and the XUV by factors
>up to 3 - the higher energy on the whole the larger the variation.
>A good proxy for the EUV variation is provided by the 10.7cm flux.
>
Which is a radio emission from the ionosphere. ie, it is all absorbed,
WAY up.
>
>This has been recorded for many years and is a standard measure of
>solar activity used in atmospheric and solar research"
>
>The difference in amount of energy absorbed in the stratosphere may
>change wind patterns at the tropopause. It seems to influence the
>place where the jet stream is positioned:
>http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20010712cloudcover.html and the
>amount of clouds on regional (USA: more clouds at solar maxima)
>
The proposed mechanism is to shift the jet stream, followed by cloud
cover, but what is the net global effect.
> and
>global (less low level clouds at solar maxima) scale. The latter from
>http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/kkk_asr_2004.pdf :
>
More of the Scandinavian Fiis-Christensen obsession. They don't even
discuss Farrar, but, as expected (NOT!) the correlation is highest in
the tropics
>"The underlying assumption of a strong sensitivity of low cloud cover
>to small changes in lower tropospheric static stability, suggested by
>Klein and Hartmann (1993) was confirmed here, using independent data."
>
But they need to discuss the correlation with ENSO in detail. Paul
Farrar, if he is reading might take a look as they have two more years
of cloud data, but I'll quote from an earlier comment of his
Well, in my own opinion, which I put in print last year (_Climatic
Change_, v47, 7-15), most of the purported changes in cloud coverage
due to cosmic rays were actually due to a transient synchronization
between the ENSO cycle and the cosmic ray cycle during the very short
period of data used. (And still used.) The patterns of variation are
those of ENSO, including its teleconnections. This is true both for
the original, now quietly abandoned, paper, and for the "new and
improved" version. The same patterns also appear in things like
outgoing longwave radiation and rainfall which are known for much
longer periods than the cloud data used in the cosmic ray studies.
There is currently no real evidence for any cloud-cosmic ray
connection. A first step toward some would be to try to correct for
confounding factors, especially one so obvious and potent as the ENSO
cycle. That should have been done in the first paper, and wasn't, and
hasn't, apparently, even yet been attempted by any of the cosmic ray
folks.
>As (low) cloud cover has a tremendous effect on the energy balance,
>the result of a small change in solar energy is amplified with a
>factor up to five...
>
>That means that in balance, the estimates for temperature to CO2
>sensitivity and sulfate aerosol sensitivity must be reduced
>accordingly, to maintain the overall result. The current estimates for
>sulfate aerosol sensitivity anyway are way out of reality (detailed
>explanation is for another message it is pretty late now), thus CO2
>sensitivity was already overestimated...
>
>
You have to swallow three or four impossible things to get there. Sorry
josh halpern
Michael Tobis
> Tom Rees <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >We know that Spencer & Christy's MSU2lt (S&C) has a very small positive
> >trend.
>
> No we don't. Its currently 0.083 oC/decade. Thats smaller than the others,
> but ny no means "very small".
As long as we are quibbling, Karner uses data through '98 and
acknowledges 0.06/decade.
This is hair splitting in my opinion. Rees's point is that this is
very much smaller than the variability.
I still don't understand how Karner claims to extract "the feedback"
from all this. Can anyone shed any light on that? The abstract claims
"antipersistency on scales longer than 2 months" leading to a
conclusion of "negative feedback". Negative feedback with respect to
what system?
It seems to me he's just saying tropospheric temperatures relax to
climatology. We already kenw that, observationally and energetically.
That's why we have the word.
This doesn't tell us anything about climate sensitivity to CO2, unless
I'm missing something.
mt
w...@bas.ac.uk
>As long as we are quibbling, Karner uses data through '98 and
>acknowledges 0.06/decade.
>This is hair splitting in my opinion. Rees's point is that this is
>very much smaller than the variability.
Yes.
>I still don't understand how Karner claims to extract "the feedback"
>from all this. Can anyone shed any light on that? The abstract claims
>"antipersistency on scales longer than 2 months" leading to a
>conclusion of "negative feedback". Negative feedback with respect to
>what system?
Is anti-persistancy the same thing as negative autocorrelation?
Tom Rees
<w...@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:40d9...@news.nwl.ac.uk...
> Is anti-persistancy the same thing as negative autocorrelation?
Yes
FerdiEgb
From two of the same researchers (J. E. Kristjánsson and J.
Kristiansen), rather skeptic about the cosmic ray connection:
http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/2002GL015646.pdf
"Figure 1. Temporal variations from 1983–1999, after removal of annual
cycle in cloud cover data. (a) Black curve: Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux;
Red curve: Solar Irradiance; Green curve: IR-Low Cloud Cover.
Significance level of correlations: 67% for cosmic rays and low
clouds, 98% for solar irradiance and low clouds. (b) Black curve:
Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux; Red curve: Solar Irradiance; Green curve:
Daytime Low Cloud Cover. Significance level of correlations: 30% for
cosmic rays and low clouds, 90% for solar irradiance and low clouds."
> >"The underlying assumption of a strong sensitivity of low cloud cover
> >to small changes in lower tropospheric static stability, suggested by
> >Klein and Hartmann (1993) was confirmed here, using independent data."
> >
>
> But they need to discuss the correlation with ENSO in detail. Paul
> Farrar, if he is reading might take a look as they have two more years
> of cloud data, but I'll quote from an earlier comment of his
>
The correlation between solar irradiance and low cloud cover is very
high over 16 years (1983-1999) and includes several El Niño events...
> Well, in my own opinion, which I put in print last year (_Climatic
> Change_, v47, 7-15), most of the purported changes in cloud coverage
> due to cosmic rays were actually due to a transient synchronization
> between the ENSO cycle and the cosmic ray cycle during the very short
> period of data used. (And still used.) The patterns of variation are
> those of ENSO, including its teleconnections. This is true both for
> the original, now quietly abandoned, paper, and for the "new and
> improved" version. The same patterns also appear in things like
> outgoing longwave radiation and rainfall which are known for much
> longer periods than the cloud data used in the cosmic ray studies.
> There is currently no real evidence for any cloud-cosmic ray
> connection. A first step toward some would be to try to correct for
> confounding factors, especially one so obvious and potent as the ENSO
> cycle. That should have been done in the first paper, and wasn't, and
> hasn't, apparently, even yet been attempted by any of the cosmic ray
> folks.
>
I agree that an El Niño will have a very large effect on cloud cover,
as can be seen in the -7W/m2 balance in tropical radiation during such
an event. Probably due to faster circulation and hence less clouds in
the subsidence zone. But the above correlation between solar
irradiance and low cloud cover still stands...
And if we may believe the late Dr. Landscheidt, the Enso, PDO, NAO,...
all are connected to solar activity... I don't know what to think
about that, but he is the first, as far as I know, to have predicted
the previous El Niño, over three years before it happened (see:
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm). And, just before he
died, he predicted the next one, see:
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm
>
> >As (low) cloud cover has a tremendous effect on the energy balance,
> >the result of a small change in solar energy is amplified with a
> >factor up to five...
> >
> >That means that in balance, the estimates for temperature to CO2
> >sensitivity and sulfate aerosol sensitivity must be reduced
> >accordingly, to maintain the overall result. The current estimates for
> >sulfate aerosol sensitivity anyway are way out of reality (detailed
> >explanation is for another message it is pretty late now), thus CO2
> >sensitivity was already overestimated...
> >
> >
>
> You have to swallow three or four impossible things to get there. Sorry
>
> josh halpern
About sulfate aerosols...
If you look at graph 3 from Crowley at
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html (you can enlarge
that) you can see that the negative radiative forcing of human made
aerosols is estimated to be near as high as what the Pinatubo spewed
into the stratosphere. That is simply impossible, as the yearly amount
of man made sulfate aerosols emitted to the troposphere is about twice
as high as what the Pinatubo injected into the stratosphere, but its
life time is only 4 days in average, while for the Pinatubo it was >2
years. Thus the influence of human made aerosols is some 0.6*4*2/800
or ~ 0.006 degr.C. Even if we assume a tenfold increase by the
(unproven) influence of sulfate aerosols on cloud formation, that is
not more than ~0.06 degr.C. That simply means that the influence of
CO2 is overestimated by the models, or they will have problems to
mimic the cooling period 1940-1975 (which is probably by decreased
solar activity...).
Moreover, the distribution of sulfate aerosols is mainly in three
area's (Western US, all Europe, South/East Asia), covering some 10% of
the surface, where the concentrations are at least a tenfold over
other areas. See: http://www.cgam.nerc.ac.uk/earthsim_project/workshop_Mar04/Takemura.pdf.
That means that the cooling effect is concentrated in only 10% of the
surface, contrary to GHGs which are more evenly distributed.
To reduce the global influence of GHGs to the observed temperatures,
the sulfate aerosols must offset them with some 0.5 to 1 degr.C. As a
consequence, the temperature decrease by sulfate aerosols in and
downwind the three industrial zones must be 5-10 degr.C lower than in
other zones. Which is not observed at all.
Conclusion: both forcing estimates (GHGs and sulfate aerosols) are
largely overestimated...
Ferdinand
Josh Halpern
FerdiEgb wrote:
>Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message
>
SNIP....
>>>global (less low level clouds at solar maxima) scale. The latter from
>>>http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/kkk_asr_2004.pdf :
>>>
>>>
>>More of the Scandinavian Fiis-Christensen obsession. They don't even
>>discuss Farrar, but, as expected (NOT!) the correlation is highest in
>>the tropics
>>
>>
>From two of the same researchers (J. E. Kristjánsson and J.
>Kristiansen), rather skeptic about the cosmic ray connection:
>http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/2002GL015646.pdf
>"Figure 1. Temporal variations from 1983–1999, after removal of annual
>cycle in cloud cover data. (a) Black curve: Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux;
>Red curve: Solar Irradiance; Green curve: IR-Low Cloud Cover.
>Significance level of correlations: 67% for cosmic rays and low
>clouds, 98% for solar irradiance and low clouds. (b) Black curve:
>Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux; Red curve: Solar Irradiance; Green curve:
>Daytime Low Cloud Cover. Significance level of correlations: 30% for
>cosmic rays and low clouds, 90% for solar irradiance and low clouds."
>
>
>>>"The underlying assumption of a strong sensitivity of low cloud cover
>>>to small changes in lower tropospheric static stability, suggested by
>>>Klein and Hartmann (1993) was confirmed here, using independent data."
>>>
>>>
>>But they need to discuss the correlation with ENSO in detail. Paul
>>Farrar, if he is reading might take a look as they have two more years
>>of cloud data, but I'll quote from an earlier comment of his
>>
>>
>The correlation between solar irradiance and low cloud cover is very
>high over 16 years (1983-1999) and includes several El Niño events...
>
They still have to remove the ENSO influence before anyone will believe
them, especially with that pattern in the global correlation which looks
dead on like El Nino. Dollars to donut, the correlation is even higher
with El Nino in the Pacific and that is clearly what is driving their
claim. In this case simply looking at the correlations over time wrt
global position and the global correlation wrt time tells you a bit less
than nothing, especially if you do not account for the largest driver,
the ENSO.
Quoting Paul Farrar:
>>Well, in my own opinion, which I put in print last year (_Climatic
>>Change_, v47, 7-15), most of the purported changes in cloud coverage
>>due to cosmic rays were actually due to a transient synchronization
>>between the ENSO cycle and the cosmic ray cycle during the very short
>>period of data used. (And still used.) The patterns of variation are
>>those of ENSO, including its teleconnections. This is true both for
>>the original, now quietly abandoned, paper, and for the "new and
>>improved" version. The same patterns also appear in things like
>>outgoing longwave radiation and rainfall which are known for much
>>longer periods than the cloud data used in the cosmic ray studies.
>>There is currently no real evidence for any cloud-cosmic ray
>>connection. A first step toward some would be to try to correct for
>>confounding factors, especially one so obvious and potent as the ENSO
>>cycle. That should have been done in the first paper, and wasn't, and
>>hasn't, apparently, even yet been attempted by any of the cosmic ray
>>folks.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I agree that an El Niño will have a very large effect on cloud cover,
>as can be seen in the -7W/m2 balance in tropical radiation during such
>an event. Probably due to faster circulation and hence less clouds in
>the subsidence zone. But the above correlation between solar
>irradiance and low cloud cover still stands...
>
Let's see, you tickle your wife, while I whack her with a baseball bat.
We haul you into court for gross bodily harm because the correlation
between your tickling her and her being injured is 100%. Right.
>And if we may believe the late Dr. Landscheidt, the Enso, PDO, NAO,...
>all are connected to solar activity... I don't know what to think
>about that, but he is the first, as far as I know, to have predicted
>the previous El Niño, over three years before it happened (see:
>http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm). And, just before he
>died, he predicted the next one, see:
>http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm
>
We don't believe Dr. Landscheidt (nil nisi bonem), for why we don't google
his name in this group, but the general rule is that his predictions
pointing
to El Ninos used rather large arrows. Kind of the old trick of shooting an
arrow into a board and then painting the target around it.
>>>As (low) cloud cover has a tremendous effect on the energy balance,
>>>the result of a small change in solar energy is amplified with a
>>>factor up to five...
>>>
>>>That means that in balance, the estimates for temperature to CO2
>>>sensitivity and sulfate aerosol sensitivity must be reduced
>>>accordingly, to maintain the overall result. The current estimates for
>>>sulfate aerosol sensitivity anyway are way out of reality (detailed
>>>explanation is for another message it is pretty late now), thus CO2
>>>sensitivity was already overestimated...
>>>
>>>
>>You have to swallow three or four impossible things to get there. Sorry
>>
>>
>
>About sulfate aerosols...
>
>If you look at graph 3 from Crowley at
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html (you can enlarge
>that) you can see that the negative radiative forcing of human made
>aerosols is estimated to be near as high as what the Pinatubo spewed
>into the stratosphere. That is simply impossible, as the yearly amount
>of man made sulfate aerosols emitted to the troposphere is about twice
>as high as what the Pinatubo injected into the stratosphere,
>
Notice the difference in location.
> but its
>life time is only 4 days in average, while for the Pinatubo it was >2
>years. Thus the influence of human made aerosols is some 0.6*4*2/800
>or ~ 0.006 degr.C. Even if we assume a tenfold increase by the
>(unproven) influence of sulfate aerosols on cloud formation, that is
>not more than ~0.06 degr.C.
>
Clouds don't form mostly in the lower stratosphere, and there are various
other processes affected by aerosol concentration besides the ones you
mention that are important in the lower troposphere and not in the
stratosphere.
Basically the rest is GIGO.
josh halpern
w...@bas.ac.uk
>Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message news:
>I agree that an El Niño will have a very large effect on cloud cover,
>as can be seen in the -7W/m2 balance in tropical radiation during such
>an event. Probably due to faster circulation and hence less clouds in
>the subsidence zone. But the above correlation between solar
>irradiance and low cloud cover still stands...
You miss the point. Due to the (transient; coincidental) sync of enso
and irradiance, the corrs are the same. You can't disentangle them.
>And if we may believe the late Dr. Landscheidt...
I wouldn't.
>Conclusion: both forcing estimates (GHGs and sulfate aerosols) are
>largely overestimated...
No.
-W
Steve Schulin
> Steve Schulin <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message news:<steve.schulin-598...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>...
>
> >
> > Happy Father's Day, Mr. Ball, to you and all the other Dads here.
> > Despite our differences of opinion, there's surely some common
> > sentiments amongst us that can be shared without rancor. One is the
> > virtually universal love parents have for their children, and the
> > corresponding desire to make the world a better place for them and
> > theirs.
>
> > Steve Schulin
>
> What a cheap ploy from a GLOBAL WARMING baby-killer -- yes there are
> dad's who are sociopaths, who kill all their children and their wife,
> then themselves. There are guys going to prison for child abuse every
> day of the year.
Well, in all fairness, I did say virtually universal.
>
> People who love their children OBEY the Precautionary Principle, ...
That sounds either much too generalized a view of the Precautionary
Principle, or just plain ridiculous. Either way, I don't mind
disagreeing with you.
> ... and
> do not gamble with their children's environment.
In 1972, Dr. Lorentz made a presentation to AAAS titled
"Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set
off a Tornado in Texas?"
Surely you don't mean to kill all the butterflies and their
equivalent, air movement wise because of the miniscule risk they
present. Heck, that would even be a gamble too, I imagine. So I hope
you'll formulate a better rule.
> AFTER you have demonstrated responsibility to the next generation, MR.
> nuclear.com, BY DISPOSING THE ACCUMULATED NUCLEAR WASTES WE ALREADY
> HAVE BACKED UP, then you may be considered a FORMER-sociopath.
MR. nuclear.com - I like that better than most of the other names
folks have used for me here in sci.environment. Thanks. As for nuclear
wastes, they aren't so bad as you seem to think. I'd go into more
detail, but my youngest son just asked very sweetly if he could use
the computer. And I'm happy to oblige.
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
>
> Meanwhile you promote the position of paid liars from the Pollution
> and Poison Industry, as if they were credible instead of proven
> corrupt, and you have not yet evaluated the evidence which withstood
> due process of law once in courtrooms already and found to be
> incriminatting evidence of conspiracy.
>
> http://sciencecop.joeuser.com/index.asp?c=1
>
> http://sciencecop.joeuser.com/bloglist.asp
>
> http://sciencecop.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=18766
>
>
> In 1993-1994 AdTI assembled a team of the most corrupt people working
> in science to obscure the health hazards of smoking and second-hand
> smoke from cigarettes. Many of the AdTI team players are still active
> to this very day taking huge payments from various dirty industries to
> confuse issues and smear the reputations of their opposition. Records
> preserved after the great multi-billion-dollar lost federal lawsuit
> cases by the tobacco industry are now online exposing the dirty tricks
> played in secrecy back then. A network of science-villians was forged
> by big-tobacco, and assembled by AdTI into a permanent cancer on
> society. AdTI drove the getaway car for corporate serial murderers.
>
> Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, which has often been little more
> than a post office box and some fly-by-night rented offices, forever
> lost its credibility, forever lost its right to participate in
> American dialog, by devoting itself to intentional fraudulent
> subversion of the American people.
>
>
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TI31749097-9099.html
> "Issue Report Environmental Protection Agency's Science", Date: 25 Sep
> 1993, Length: 3 pages By Jonathan Tolman and Cesar Conda. (Cesar V.
> Conda was Alexis de Tocqueville Institution's Executive Director;
> Jonathan Tolman was visting fellow of Alexis de Tocqueville
> Institution -- this is an AdTI report.)
>
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756102-6120.html
> "the Epa and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke", Date: 1994
> Length: 19 pages (draft of pre-publication report found in Lorillard
> Tobacco Company files)
> by Dr. S. Fred Singer, Professor of Environmental Sciences (on leave),
> University of Virginia, and Senior Fellow Alexis de Tocqueville
> Institution, and Mr. Kent Jeffreys, Adjunct Scholar Alexis de
> Tocqueville Institution.
>
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756807-6876.html
> "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination
> A Research Report Conducted by the Alexis De Tocqueville Institution"
> Date: 11 Aug 1994, Length: 70 pages
>
> Academic Advisory Board -- Dr. Gary Anderson, Professor of Economics,
> California State University-Northridge -- Dr. Nancy Bord (Yonge),
> Visiting Scholar, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University -- Dr.
> Gordon L. Brady, Associate Professor and Director Environmental
> Studies, Sweet Briar College -- Dr. Jeffrey Clark, Professor of
> Economics, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga -- Dr. Michael Darby,
> Professor of Economics, and Director John M. Olin Center for Policy,
> University of California, Los Angeles -- Dr. Robert Ekelund, Lowder
> Eminent Scholar, Auburn University -- Dr. Michael Gough, Project
> Director, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment -- Dr. William
> Hazeltine, Environmental Consultant -- Dr. Thomas Hopkins, Gosnell
> Professor of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology -- Dr.
> Dwight R. Lee, Ramsey Professor of Economics, University of Georgia --
> Dr. Michael Marlow, Professor of Economics, California State
> Polytechnic University-San Luis Obispo -- Dr. Thomas Gale Moore,
> Senior Fellow The Hoover Institution, Stanford University -- Dr.
> Malcolm Ross, Research Mineralogist U.S. Geological Survey -- Dr. S.
> Fred Singer Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University
> of Virginia and President Science and Environmental Policy Project
> (SEPP) -- Dr. Gerhard Stohrer, Director of Chemical Risk Program,
> Science and Environmental Policy Project, and former Department Head
> Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research -- Dr. Mark Thornton,
> Professor of Economics Auburn University -- Dr. Robert D. Tollison,
> Duncan Black Professor of Economics and Director Center for the Study
> of Public Choice, George Mason University -- Dr. Richard Vedder,
> Professor of Economics, University of Ohio -- Dr. Richard Wagner,
> Professor of Economics and Chairman, Department of Economics, George
> Mason University
>
> Author: Kent Jeffreys,
> Principal Reviewer: Dr. S. Fred Singer,
> Senior Staff and Contributing Associates:
> Rachael Applegate, Bruce Bartlett, Merrick Carey, Cesar Conda, Gregory
> Fossedal, Dave Juday, Felix Rouse, Aaron Stevens.
>
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIMN0339276-9278.html
> Tobacco Institute "Communications Efforts September 1988", Date: Sep
> 1988, Length: 3 pages
> Media Tours by Consultants
> -- "Social Cost" media tours by George Mason University economists
> Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner were launched in September in
> Richmond, VA and Tulsa, OK. These tours discuss the Tollison/Wagner.
> book, Smoking and the State, and the issues surrounding the misuse of
> "social costs." Enclosed you will find the press kit used with the
> media and reports on the press generated by the tour.
>
> Robert Tollison and Richard Wagner were corrupt on the day they sat in
> on the "impartial peer-review" of "Science, Economics, and
> Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination, A Research Report
> Conducted by the Alexis De Tocqueville Institution"
>
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2501254705-4708.html
> Proposal for the Organisation of the Whitecoat Project, Date: 22 Feb
> 1988 (est.), Length: 4 pages
>
> SUMMARY OF THE WHITECOAT PROJECT
> The Project is designed to support market-level ETS programmes within
> the PM EEMA and EEC markets. The Objectives of these overall ETS
> programmes are defined as:-
> End Goals:
> - Resist and roll back smoking restrictions.
> - Restore smoker confidence.
> Pre-requisites:
> - Reverse scientific and popular misconception that ETS is harmful.
> - Restore social acceptability of smoking.
>
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2023856052-6057.html
> The ETS Program for 1991, Date: 1990 (est.), Length: 6 pages
>
> "Science Objectives" were estimated to cost a whopping $16,688,400 and
> included "Develop and support activities and research which maintain
> the controversy..." about secondhand smoke and "Maintain research
> activity...to provide support for our position."
>
> Among the "Science Objectives" were "Develop[ing] and support[ing]
> activities and research which maintain the controversy" about tobacco
> smoke.
>
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIOK0003644.html
> Date: 31 Jan 1989, Length: 1 page
>
> Professional fees and expenses paid Dwight Lee and Robert Tollison
> $8,421.37. Up to nearly a million dollars per year budget is shared by
> a half-dozen "whitecoats" deception agents in Tobacco Institute
> budgetary records of this time period.
>
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0536080-6087.html
>
> Robert D. Tollison received these check numbers:
> page 6:
> Cumulative General Ledger the Tobacco Institute Inc. Period Ending
> 09-30-87
> * Robert D. Tollison Check #42538 87-MAR-30 $16,450
> * Robert D. Tollison Check #44247 87-MAY-29 $14,075
> page 7:
> * Robert D. Tollison Check #45160 87-JUL-07 $27,388
> * Robert D. Tollison Check #45717 87-JUL-22 $7,750 (Totals paid over 5
> months = $65,663.)
>
> Gary Anderson - Tobacco Industry stealth consultant 1988-1996 --
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIDN0018432-8476.html (Tobacco
> Institute) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/71008079.html (American
> Tobacco Company) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIOK0021837-1844.html
> (Tobacco Institute) --
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/88116221-6224.html (Tobacco Institute)
> -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/71081376.html (American Tobacco
> Company) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/71081377.html (American
> Tobacco Company) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/86015105-5117.html
> (Lorillard Tobacco Company) --
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/86015122-5123.html (Lorillard Tobacco
> Company) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92761030-1042.html
> (Lorillard Tobacco Company) --
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIDN0006954-6958.html (Tobacco
> Institute) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIDN0011871-1904.html
> (Tobacco Institute) --
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIDN0005687-5689.html (Tobacco
> Institute) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0536332-6369.html
> (Tobacco Institute) --
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0536164-6203.html (Tobacco
> Institute) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0538126-8164.html
> (Tobacco Institute) --
> http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIDN0017394-7432.html (Tobacco
> Institute) -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TI16551799-1815.html The
> Tobacco Institute -- http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2074211106.html
> (Philip Morris) --
>
> Another CORRUPT link in the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution chain of
> frauds -- Gordon Macklin, who was director during WorldCom's
> $9,000,000,000.00 stock-manipulations frauds. Macklin did NOTHING
> while WorldCom was looted, and he has done NOTHING to stop the
> Microsoft-benefits of fraulent Ken Brown-AdTI attacks on
> community-created public-spirited software that allows citizens free
> choice to escape the Microsoft monopoly on operating systems and
> productivity softwares. Brown has been caught telling lies, and it is
> Macklin's legal duty to retract Brown's statements, fire Brown, and
> apologize to the injured public.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2003-06-10-worldcomboard_x.htm
>
> ...
>
> http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
> http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html
> http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html
> http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html
> http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
> http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
Psalm 110
> > > Happy Father's Day, Mr. Ball, to you and all the other Dads here.
> > > Despite our differences of opinion, there's surely some common
> > > sentiments amongst us that can be shared without rancor. One is the
> > > virtually universal love parents have for their children, and the
> > > corresponding desire to make the world a better place for them and
> > > theirs.
>
> > > Steve Schulin
> >
> > What a cheap ploy from a GLOBAL WARMING baby-killer -- yes there are
> > dad's who are sociopaths, who kill all their children and their wife,
> > then themselves. There are guys going to prison for child abuse every
> > day of the year.
>
> Well, in all fairness, I did say virtually universal.
> >
> > People who love their children OBEY the Precautionary Principle, ...
>
> That sounds either much too generalized a view of the Precautionary
> Principle, or just plain ridiculous. Either way, I don't mind
> disagreeing with you.
>
You prefer to agree with proven liars of the lowest integrity, showing
that BIRDS OF A FEATHER DO FLOCK TOGETHER. Singer's leprosy is
contagious: the more you have intimate relationships with him and his
corrupt kind, the more you rot.
More documented evidence on the corruption of S. Fred Singer.
1993 and 1994 were busy moments in the life of S. Fred Singer. During
this period of time Singer was using offices provided by Sun Myung
Moon ("moonies") founding his "Science and Environmental Policy
Project" ("SEPP"), orchestrating the "Heidelberg Appeal" to counter
the Union of Concerned Scientists' "Appeal to Humanity", organizing
two corrupt science reports published by Alexis de Tocqueville
Institution attacking the EPA, participating in the Tobacco Institute
"Whitecoats Project", and co-hosting two fraudulent science
gatherings.
One of these science gatherings called "Scientific Integrity in the
Public Policy Process", was co-sponsored by International Center for
Scientific Ecology ("ICSE") and SEPP, both which were S. Fred Singer
front organizations, held May 24-25th, 1993, at the Madison Hotel in
Washington, D.C.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2502284041-4042.html
Singer, already in the employ of the Whitecoats Project, was globally
known to tobacco executives around the world. Here are a few surviving
fax references to the International Center for Scientific Ecology,
linking the Heidelberg Appeal to tobacco stealth activities.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385351.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385382.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385381.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385369.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025498347.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385370.html
Three of these faxes explicitly mention the "Heidelberg Appeal" and
the Paris ICSE meeting in the same document. The body of documention
found in tobacco industry files includes materials impossible to
obtain except by collaboration of the Heidelberg Appeal/ICSE key
figures. There are drafts of the guidelines to use for the meeting,
pre-meeting lists of invited panelists, and, of course, there is a
particularly touching post-meeting report by tobacco industry stealth
Whitecoat agent Peter N. Lee.
Lee's report, on the foundational meeting/seminar of an organization
named "International Center for Scientific Ecology" has his amusing
comment "Having said that, it was notable that no members of
environmental organizations had been invited to the conference, so
counter-arguments were often not made." It took a number or reading
for the importance of that fact to sink in -- no ecologists, no
environmental scientists with any understanding of the ecological
world, were invited to an event hosted by "International Center for
Scientific Ecology". Lee's cynical sneering of the "restricted" nature
of this meeting is clear evidence in itself of the pure
industry-propaganda purpose of this organization.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2028385357-5368.html [page 2].
''Subject: the Heidelberg Appeal ...This coalition has its roots in
the asbestos industry. ... We are involved ... but we are being
discrete because some of the coalition members are concerned about a
"tobacco connection". Our strategy is to continue discretely
supporting the coalition and help it grow in size and credibility.''
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2025498346.html
Up until the 1994 time period, Richard Mellon Scaife was the principal
ultra-right-wing donor to "Institute of Humane Studies" at George
Mason University. In later years Scaife's continuing donations would
be dwarfed by Koch Industry, owners killer Charles G. Koch, and killer
David H. Koch.
http://www.jimarnoldassociates.com/news_09_24_02.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/mojo_400/51_koch.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml
http://www.atlasusa.org/highlight_archive/1995/H1995-02-Environment.html
-- In January 1995, the Science & Environmental Policy Project moved
to Fairfax, joining Atlas, the Institute for Humane Studies, The Locke
Institute, and the Center for Market Processes at "4084 University
Drive" near George Mason University. Atlas provided a grant to IPPS to
facilitate the move and help fund the organization during its first
year in Fairfax.
Listed at the same address as SEPP and Atlas are Institute for Humane
Studies, Locke Institute, and the Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow
Program.
http://linux-universe.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2765
The Institute of Humane Studies was a smokescreen affiliation S. Fred
Singer used in an AdTI-tobacco whitecoats fraudulent science report
during the 1993-1994 time period.
Certainly the most indisputable evidence of moral turpitude of S. Fred
Singer was his crafting of the "Science, Economics, and Environmental
Policy: A Critical Examination A Research Report Conducted by the
Alexis De Tocqueville Institution" Date: 11 Aug 1994, Length: 70 pages
http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/92756807-6876.html
Culpable persons named as being involved in this corrupt activity
were:
Not one single member of the "Academic Advisory Board", the so-called
"peer-reviewers", can be found clean of taint of corruption. Almost
every one of them has important monetary attachments to Tobacco
Whitecoats Project, George Mason University (Scaife-Koch) funding,
and/or other dirty-industry flacking.
Recall that ICSE/Heidelberg Appeal "has its roots in the asbestos
industry" and the section on asbestos in this AdTI report makes more
sense than if looked at only as a tobacco-funded smokescreen.
William Hazelton operated a lab for the DDT whitewash -- DDT was
banned as environmentally disasterous, and the bugs soon developed
resistant mutations, so it was ineffectual as well, NOT because it was
cancer-causing, but Hazelton's disproof of cancer-causing is supposed
to show the EPA was wrong to ban DDT. DDT also appeared in tobacco,
having saturated the growing soils and having a very long half-life in
the soils, so tobacco funded the tobacco-friendly spokesperson
Hazelton lavishly.
Hazelton was party to the fraudulent AdTI 1994 'science report" by S.
Fred Singer and Kent Jeffreys. the AdTI report of main controversy
was: "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical
Examination, A Research Report Conducted by the Alexis De Tocqueville
Institution", where Hazelton was listed as "Academic Advisory Board"
member. Hazelton is listed on page 14 of this RJ Reynolds Tobacco
Company document, http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/506934337-4358.pdf,
as receiving $479,357 in 1987, $763,995 in 1998, and budgeted for
$550,000 in 1989.
Another turncoat, "whitecoat Robert D. Tollison" received these check
numbers:
page 6:
Cumulative General Ledger the Tobacco Institute Inc. Period Ending
09-30-87
* Robert D. Tollison Check #42538 87-MAR-30 $16,450
* Robert D. Tollison Check #44247 87-MAY-29 $14,075
page 7:
* Robert D. Tollison Check #45160 87-JUL-07 $27,388
* Robert D. Tollison Check #45717 87-JUL-22 $7,750 (Totals paid over 5
months = $65,663.)
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIFL0536080-6087.html
These are the "peer-reviewers" that S. Fred Singer, "senior reviewer"
assembled for the "Academic Advisory Board" on the AdTI smear campaign
on the EPA's scientific integrity.
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Heidelberg-Appeal.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Confronting_AdTI.html
Steve Schulin
>
> > > > Happy Father's Day, Mr. Ball, to you and all the other Dads here.
> > > > Despite our differences of opinion, there's surely some common
> > > > sentiments amongst us that can be shared without rancor. One is the
> > > > virtually universal love parents have for their children, and the
> > > > corresponding desire to make the world a better place for them and
> > > > theirs.
>
> > > > Steve Schulin
> > >
> > > What a cheap ploy from a GLOBAL WARMING baby-killer -- yes there are
> > > dad's who are sociopaths, who kill all their children and their wife,
> > > then themselves. There are guys going to prison for child abuse every
> > > day of the year.
> >
> > Well, in all fairness, I did say virtually universal.
> > >
> > > People who love their children OBEY the Precautionary Principle, ...
> >
> > That sounds either much too generalized a view of the Precautionary
> > Principle, or just plain ridiculous. Either way, I don't mind
> > disagreeing with you.
> >
>
> You prefer to agree with proven liars of the lowest integrity, showing
> that BIRDS OF A FEATHER DO FLOCK TOGETHER. Singer's leprosy is
> contagious: the more you have intimate relationships with him and his
> corrupt kind, the more you rot.
I've read some of the evidence links you cite. Nary a one in any way
tended to support your awful claims about Fred Singer.
>
> More documented evidence on the corruption of S. Fred Singer.
>
> 1993 and 1994 were busy moments in the life of S. Fred Singer. During
> this period of time Singer was using offices provided by Sun Myung
> Moon ("moonies") founding his "Science and Environmental Policy
> Project" ("SEPP"), orchestrating the "Heidelberg Appeal" to counter
> the Union of Concerned Scientists' "Appeal to Humanity", organizing
> two corrupt science reports published by Alexis de Tocqueville
> Institution attacking the EPA, participating in the Tobacco Institute
> "Whitecoats Project", and co-hosting two fraudulent science
> gatherings. ...
I refer you to my June 16 reply to similar message of yours --
archived at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1018222676d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=steve.schulin-36A1CF.09395116062004%40comcast.dca.giganews.com
FerdiEgb
> them, especially with that pattern in the global correlation which looks
> dead on like El Nino. Dollars to donut, the correlation is even higher
> with El Nino in the Pacific and that is clearly what is driving their
> claim. In this case simply looking at the correlations over time wrt
> global position and the global correlation wrt time tells you a bit less
> than nothing, especially if you do not account for the largest driver,
> the ENSO.
> >
> >I agree that an El Niño will have a very large effect on cloud cover,
> >as can be seen in the -7W/m2 balance in tropical radiation during such
> >an event. Probably due to faster circulation and hence less clouds in
> >the subsidence zone. But the above correlation between solar
> >irradiance and low cloud cover still stands...
> >
>
> Let's see, you tickle your wife, while I whack her with a baseball bat.
> We haul you into court for gross bodily harm because the correlation
> between your tickling her and her being injured is 100%. Right.
>
Agreed (beat my wife regularly), remains to be seen what the
long-range effect of solar and others on cloud cover is...
> >And if we may believe the late Dr. Landscheidt, the Enso, PDO, NAO,...
> >all are connected to solar activity... I don't know what to think
> >about that, but he is the first, as far as I know, to have predicted
> >the previous El Ni o, over three years before it happened (see:
> >http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm). And, just before he
> >died, he predicted the next one, see:
> >http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm
> >
>
> We don't believe Dr. Landscheidt (nil nisi bonem), for why we don't googl
> e
> his name in this group, but the general rule is that his predictions
> pointing
> to El Ninos used rather large arrows. Kind of the old trick of shooting a
> n
> arrow into a board and then painting the target around it.
> >
In the 1999 prediction, he painted a target of +- 6 months around
2002.9 for the next El Niño. That was not so bad for a phenomenom that
has very irregular intervals... But let's wait if his last predictions
for the next years comes through...
> >About sulfate aerosols...
> >
> >If you look at graph 3 from Crowley at
> >http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html (you can enlarge
> >that) you can see that the negative radiative forcing of human made
> >aerosols is estimated to be near as high as what the Pinatubo spewed
> >into the stratosphere. That is simply impossible, as the yearly amount
> >of man made sulfate aerosols emitted to the troposphere is about twice
> >as high as what the Pinatubo injected into the stratosphere,
> >
> Notice the difference in location.
>
> > but its
> >life time is only 4 days in average, while for the Pinatubo it was >2
> >years. Thus the influence of human made aerosols is some 0.6*4*2/800
> >or ~ 0.006 degr.C. Even if we assume a tenfold increase by the
> >(unproven) influence of sulfate aerosols on cloud formation, that is
> >not more than ~0.06 degr.C.
> >
> Clouds don't form mostly in the lower stratosphere, and there are various
>
> other processes affected by aerosol concentration besides the ones you
> mention that are important in the lower troposphere and not in the
> stratosphere.
>
Sulfate aerosols by the Pinatubo were spewed in the stratosphere,
spread around the tropics in a few weeks and lasted over two years,
before slowly dropping out into the troposphere. I don't think there
was much difference in reflection for incoming light between sulfate
aerosols in the stratosphere and human made sulfate aerosols in the
troposphere. The difference is that SO2 in the troposphere will
attract water much faster (1.5 day) to convert into sulfate aerosols
than in the dry stratosphere (a few weeks). A second difference is the
proposed influence on cloud droplet size. Which plays no role in the
stratosphere. But together, the lifetime is only a few days, which
means that the effect is regional, not global.
Which implies that regions where high levels of sulfate aerosols are
formed *must* be (much) cooler than the average of adjacent regions to
have a large enough effect to reduce the climate model's reduction of
at least halve the forcing of global GHGs. Or the models use
overestimated forcings for both...
GIGO or a simple No (William?) are a little too easy here...
Ferdinand
Psalm 110
> archived at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1018222676d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=steve.schulin-36A1CF.09395116062004%40comcast.dca.giganews.com
You repeat lies from liars without end, and you dare to complain when
documented proof which passed through due process of law is posted and
reposted until you stop lying. You haven't seen the BEST evidence yet,
although what you were given is sufficient to make an intelligent
person back away from the contagious lepers Singer, Michaels,
Baliunas, Soon, Ames, Seitz, Idso(s)... There are NO UNCORRUPTED
Global Warming working scientist deniers, and we now have the proof of
corruption on every single one of them to shut them down, even shut
down the R.I.C.O. organized crime institutes they operate out of... Oh
boy, is this going to be fun.
steve....@nuclear.com (Steve Schulin) wrote in message news:<feed81b2.04062...@posting.google.com>...
Josh Halpern
FerdiEgb wrote:
>Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message n
>
>>>Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>SNIP....
>>
>>They still have to remove the ENSO influence before anyone will believe
>>them, especially with that pattern in the global correlation which looks
>>dead on like El Nino. Dollars to donut, the correlation is even higher
>>with El Nino in the Pacific and that is clearly what is driving their
>>claim. In this case simply looking at the correlations over time wrt
>>global position and the global correlation wrt time tells you a bit less
>>than nothing, especially if you do not account for the largest driver,
>>the ENSO.
>>
>>
>>>I agree that an El Niño will have a very large effect on cloud cover,
>>>as can be seen in the -7W/m2 balance in tropical radiation during such
>>>an event. Probably due to faster circulation and hence less clouds in
>>>the subsidence zone. But the above correlation between solar
>>>irradiance and low cloud cover still stands...
>>>
>>>
>>Let's see, you tickle your wife, while I whack her with a baseball bat.
>>We haul you into court for gross bodily harm because the correlation
>>between your tickling her and her being injured is 100%. Right.
>>
>>
>
>Agreed (beat my wife regularly), remains to be seen what the
>long-range effect of solar and others on cloud cover is...
>
See Farrar in Climate Change, and in this newsgroup. It is nowhere as
open a question as you think.
>>>And if we may believe the late Dr. Landscheidt, the Enso, PDO, NAO,...
>>>all are connected to solar activity... I don't know what to think
>>>about that, but he is the first, as far as I know, to have predicted
>>>the previous El Ni o, over three years before it happened (see:
>>>http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm). And, just before he
>>>died, he predicted the next one, see:
>>>http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>We don't believe Dr. Landscheidt (nil nisi bonem), for why we don't
>>google his name in this group, but the general rule is that his
>>predictions pointing to El Ninos used rather large arrows. Kind
>>of the old trick of shooting an arrow into a board and then painting
>>the target around it.
>>
>>
>
>In the 1999 prediction, he painted a target of +- 6 months around
>2002.9 for the next El Niño. That was not so bad for a phenomenom that
>has very irregular intervals... But let's wait if his last predictions
>for the next years comes through...
>
>
Well, as they say, why do the work, when someone has done it better
before.....
I'm going to quote from a series of posts William Connolley made in July
2001. His interlocuator was Johnne Morton. You could google it
OK, time to stop the trivia over referencing, and look at the data. Compare:
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/solarnao.htm (figure 1)
with
http://www.wmc.care4free.net/sci/l/f1.gif
which is generated by "solar.pro" (which is in IDL, so maybe
you can't run it, but you can check what I've done if you can
be bothered).
The lines on my plot are (thin black) solar spots; thick black
(ditto smoothed); thick red (ditto smoothed anoth way). Vertical
thick blue: objective identification of minima in solar cycle;
thin black vertical: next solar max, based on the 4.3/6.7 split
given by L; thin red: min-to-max again split; thin blue: max-to-min again
split. Thick yellow, SOI, inverted.
Replacing L's rather wide triangles with thin lines makes something
of a difference: suddenly the correspondence doesn't look so good.
However, there also seems to a placement problem: L has the 1985-ish
solar min in 85, I think 86; he then has a pretty yellow triangle in
about '87 over a nice peak in enso; I think the line is in '88
which no longer lies over a peak. Etc.
So: my preliminary analysis says, this doesn't hold up. I could have
done something wrong: someone out there check me... I frequently
make mistakes.
LATER
Lets go back to science: ENSO is generally agreed to be a coupled
ocean-atmos phenomenon, with timescale set by waves (not beach-type)
travelling across the pacific, and exact phase chaotic. It would be
astonishing if, given this picture, it were influenced by solar cycles
in the way L claims. And, it looks like, it isn't.
> I would appreciate some references to support this, on the internet if
>possible. L cites Peixoto, J. P. und Oort, A. H.: Physics of climate. New
>York, American Institute of Physics, 1992 as having demonstrated that changes
>in SOI precede everything else. In the case of SSTs, SOI changes precede on
>average by about four months. However, SOI preceded SSTs right before the big
>1997-98 El Niño by about two months. The beginning of the present La Niña was
>also preceded by SOI by two months.
OK, here we go: if you run atmosphere-only GCM simulations, forced by SSTs and
sea ice, and you run an ensemble of 4-6-whatever, using the same SST forcing,
then you observe that the atmospheric response is "predictable" in the tropics,
and not in the extratropics (to summarise wildly). Something like 90% of the
signal in atmospheric pressure is repeatable, in the tropics, between the
different runs. I don't know an on-line reference to this, but if you have paper,
try:
Rowell DP (1998) Assessing Potential Seasonal Predictability With An Ensemble Of
Multidecadal Gcm Simulations. J. Climate, v11, #2, 109-120
from whose abstract:
"...Global maps of potential predictability, for simulated seasonal mean
precipitation and mean sea level pressure (MSLP), are shown for both
the solstitial and equinoctial seasons. In most regions, this model-
based predictability estimate has large variations through the annual
cycle. Not surprisingly, the highest predictability occurs over the
tropical oceans, particularly the Atlantic and Pacific, for which a
better knowledge of the influence of SSTs on diabatic heating is
important for understanding the variability of teleconnected regions."
Of course, this is the immeadiate, direct feedback. The system is coupled, after all.
There will be a difference in average size. Since scattering depends
strongly on size, that is a major difference. See for example
http://www.ess.uci.edu/~cmclinden/link/xx/node22.html towards the
middle. Since stratospheric sulfate (ok sulphate) aerosols are
submicron, they will not (effectively) scatter IR photons. The
URL makes the point that volcanic stratospheric sulphate aerosols
are larger than normal. I guess this is because of the water vapor
that is spewn into the stratosphere with them.
>A second difference is the
>proposed influence on cloud droplet size. Which plays no role in the
>stratosphere. But together, the lifetime is only a few days, which
>means that the effect is regional, not global.
>
>Which implies that regions where high levels of sulfate aerosols are
>formed *must* be (much) cooler than the average of adjacent regions to
>have a large enough effect to reduce the climate model's reduction of
>at least halve the forcing of global GHGs. Or the models use
>overestimated forcings for both...
>
>GIGO or a simple No (William?) are a little too easy here...
>
Yep, look at IR scattering cross section as a function of particle size.
Look at average particle size.
Josh Halpern
Phil Hays
>Phil Hays wrote:
>> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>> Phil Hays wrote:
>>
>>>> X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
>>>>
>>>> This is a first order discrete time system. If k is negative, the
>>>> feedback is negative. If k is positive, the feedback is positive.
>>>> What range of k is the system stable?
>>
>>> I'll take a guess. It looks to me like the system is stable for
>>> absolute value of k less than 1.
>>
>> So then we agree that positive feedback does not imply a unstable
>> system?
>
>Given your definition of positive feedback, yes. However, note that your
>definition is not the only accepted definition.
If you have a defination of "positive feedback" that doesn't apply to
k being positive in the above equation, I'll be interested.
charliew2
> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>> Phil Hays wrote:
>>> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>>>> Phil Hays wrote:
>>>
>>>>> X(t+1) := k*X(t) + Y(t)
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a first order discrete time system. If k is negative, the
>>>>> feedback is negative. If k is positive, the feedback is positive.
>>>>> What range of k is the system stable?
>>>
>>>> I'll take a guess. It looks to me like the system is stable for
>>>> absolute value of k less than 1.
>>>
>>> So then we agree that positive feedback does not imply a unstable
>>> system?
>>
>> Given your definition of positive feedback, yes. However, note that
>> your definition is not the only accepted definition.
>
> If you have a defination of "positive feedback" that doesn't apply to
> k being positive in the above equation, I'll be interested.
Phil, if you think outside the context of the equation, and do a Google
search for positive feedback, there are examples that are defined
differently. However, since this NG is devoted to environmental issues
only, you probably will not want to go outside the context of the equation.
Phil Hays
Sure, I can google for "positive feedback" and find out how teachers
should give positive feedback to students, meaning tell them when they
do good. Yawn.
So then we can agree that positive feedback does not imply a unstable
system, for any control systems relevant definition of "positive
feedback"?
charliew2
I'm not ready to agree to this yet. Your definition of positive feedback
seems to apply to open loop processes. For closed loop processes (e.g., the
cruise control example that I formerly gave), I maintain that positive
feedback from a controller is unstable. This instability does not merely
involve a setpoint offset. The controller output rapidly goes to either 0%
or 100%, which is the lowest and highest possible outputs, respectively.
Phil Hays
Once again, the example I gave was for a closed loop system. If k is
negative, the feedback is negative. If k is positive, the feedback is
positive. For the special case of k=0, the system is open loop.
> For closed loop processes (e.g., the
>cruise control example that I formerly gave), I maintain that positive
>feedback from a controller is unstable.
Show that system. Build it and try it, giving enough information so
that your result can be duplicated, or build a model of the system and
simulate it. I'm especially interested in the case of the loop gain
being about +0.5
charliew2
I can put together an Excel spreadsheet of a dynamic simulation and email it
to you. Is that acceptable?
Phil Hays
Sure, but why not just post the equations as text?
charliew2
Phil,
surely you can't be serious. There are several equations involved, and text
is a poor format for making the point.
Josh Halpern
charliew2 wrote:
>Phil Hays wrote:
>
>
SNIP....
>>Sure, but why not just post the equations as text?
>>
>>
>
>
>surely you can't be serious. There are several equations involved, and text
>is a poor format for making the point.
>
>
>
This is the only decent excuse for TeX I have ever seen
josh halpern
Phil Hays
wrote:
Of course I'm serious. Equations are easy to write, an example:
X(t+1) := k1*X(t) + k2*X(t-1) + k3*X(t-2) + k4*Y(t)
Where X(t+1) is the next output, X(t) is the current output,..., k1 is
blah....
What's the problem? But feel free to just send me the spread sheet.
I'll convert it to equations and post them so you can verify I
extracted them from the spread sheet correctly.
FerdiEgb
> FerdiEgb wrote:
>
>
> See Farrar in Climate Change, and in this newsgroup. It is nowhere as
> open a question as you think.
>
Sorry for the delay in response, had a family reunion and had to catch
up with the past (year 2000-2003) discussions about this topic.
[snipped]
> >>>
> >>We don't believe Dr. Landscheidt (nil nisi bonem), for why we don't
> >>google his name in this group, but the general rule is that his
> >>predictions pointing to El Ninos used rather large arrows. Kind
> >>of the old trick of shooting an arrow into a board and then painting
> >>the target around it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >In the 1999 prediction, he painted a target of +- 6 months around
> >2002.9 for the next El Ni o. That was not so bad for a phenomenom that
>
> >has very irregular intervals... But let's wait if his last predictions
> >for the next years comes through...
> >
> >
>
> Well, as they say, why do the work, when someone has done it better
> before.....
>
> I'm going to quote from a series of posts William Connolley made in July
>
> 2001. His interlocuator was Johnne Morton. You could google it
>
> OK, time to stop the trivia over referencing, and look at the data. Compa
> re:
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/solarnao.htm (figure 1)
>
> with
>
> http://www.wmc.care4free.net/sci/l/f1.gif
>
[snipped]
I did look at the graphs William provided, and I do agree more with
him than with Landscheidt. There is some tendency for SOI indices to
be on the slopes of the solar cycle (in reverse sign for reversed
solar magnetic field), but the range is rather broad. But still, there
may be the butterfly in South America (in this case some solar
eruptions)...
>
[snipped]
> >
> >Sulfate aerosols by the Pinatubo were spewed in the stratosphere,
> >spread around the tropics in a few weeks and lasted over two years,
> >before slowly dropping out into the troposphere. I don't think there
> >was much difference in reflection for incoming light between sulfate
> >aerosols in the stratosphere and human made sulfate aerosols in the
> >troposphere.
> >
> >The difference is that SO2 in the troposphere will
> >attract water much faster (1.5 day) to convert into sulfate aerosols
> >than in the dry stratosphere (a few weeks).
> >
> There will be a difference in average size. Since scattering depends
> strongly on size, that is a major difference. See for example
> http://www.ess.uci.edu/~cmclinden/link/xx/node22.html towards the
> middle. Since stratospheric sulfate (ok sulphate) aerosols are
> submicron, they will not (effectively) scatter IR photons. The
> URL makes the point that volcanic stratospheric sulphate aerosols
> are larger than normal. I guess this is because of the water vapor
> that is spewn into the stratosphere with them.
>
[snipped]
>
> Yep, look at IR scattering cross section as a function of particle size.
>
> Look at average particle size.
>
About the sulfate aerosols, the graphs don't give the difference
between tropospheric (mostly human made) and stratospheric sulfate
aerosols, so I can't see the difference between the two (as long as
both are real aerosols). If the tropospheric droplets are seeding into
(mainly cumulus) clouds, that will reduce the average drop size of the
clouds to smaller drops. That would increase albedo and thus cooling.
But again, if that is true, the part of the global area where the
largest amounts of sulfate aerosols are produced and found (10% of the
surface, or maybe 20% if you include the longer lifetime of extra
seeded clouds), must be (much) cooler than the adjacent regions to
have a global cooling effect. According to a model
(http://www.atm.dal.ca/~lohmann/papers/lohmann+lesins-science.pdf):
-0.53 W/m2 over land and -0.98 W/m2 over the oceans globally. That
means that e.g. the NE US, one of the regions with the highest SO2
emissions, must receive -2.6 to -5.3 W/m2 less heat input and the
adjacent ocean some -5 to -9.8 W/m2. The Max Plank Institute model did
find a regional difference of -1 W/m2 over the industrial East of the
US and +2.5 W/m2 for the adjacent more westerly region (didn't find
back the URL, which I found yesterday). That means that the global
drop in insolation by sulfate aerosols should be only -0.1 to -0.2
W/m2, of minor importance, compared to the 2 W/m2 we should have now
already from GHGs globally. And both models are rather contradictory,
to say the least.
There is not much difference in trend shape between Mid-US and NE US
states, both show the main US decreasing trend after 1945 and an
increasing trend after 1975 (I tried several GISS rural stations).
While Mid-US states should have much less influence from sulfate
aerosols, they should show a steady increase in temperature, directly
related to GHG increases, but they don't.
I have the impression that the influence of sulfate aerosols in the
models is highly overestimated. And thus the forcing of GHGs is
overestimated too...
Ferdinand
w...@bas.ac.uk
>I did look at the graphs William provided, and I do agree more with
>him than with Landscheidt.
Oh good!
>I have the impression that the influence of sulfate aerosols in the
>models is highly overestimated. And thus the forcing of GHGs is
>overestimated too...
Here is a piccy of the difference between a GHG only model and one with
lots of other forcings too:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/a.png
take a copy if you like it. It won't be there long. The global mean
difference is 0.47 oC. Its a 10 year mean for NH summer. Of course
the difference includes random variation, so don't take it too
literally.
I don't know why you think the influence of sulphate is overestimated.
-W.
Josh Halpern
FerdiEgb wrote:
>Josh Halpern <j.ha...@incoming.verizon.net> wrote in message
>
SNIP....
>[snipped]
>
>
>>>Sulfate aerosols by the Pinatubo were spewed in the stratosphere,
>>>spread around the tropics in a few weeks and lasted over two years,
>>>before slowly dropping out into the troposphere. I don't think there
>>>was much difference in reflection for incoming light between sulfate
>>>aerosols in the stratosphere and human made sulfate aerosols in the
>>>troposphere.
>>>
>>>The difference is that SO2 in the troposphere will
>>>attract water much faster (1.5 day) to convert into sulfate aerosols
>>>than in the dry stratosphere (a few weeks).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>There will be a difference in average size. Since scattering depends
>>strongly on size, that is a major difference. See for example
>>http://www.ess.uci.edu/~cmclinden/link/xx/node22.html towards the
>>middle. Since stratospheric sulfate (ok sulphate) aerosols are
>>submicron, they will not (effectively) scatter IR photons. The
>>URL makes the point that volcanic stratospheric sulphate aerosols
>>are larger than normal. I guess this is because of the water vapor
>>that is spewn into the stratosphere with them.
>>
>>
>>
>[snipped]
>
>
>>Yep, look at IR scattering cross section as a function of particle size.
>>
>>Look at average particle size.
>>
>>
>>
You are missing the point. Stratospheric sulphate aerosols, no matter
what the
source, are too small to scatter IR light. They are transparent to IR,
thus have not much effect on the radiation balance and global temperature
(they actually have a cooling effect because they scatter incident
visible and UV light from the sun back out of the atmosphere.
Tropospheric sulphate aerosols are much bigger. Therefore they are very
effective at scattering IR light and have a significant effect on the
radiation balance, and thus global temperature. The IR scattering leads
to an increase of global temperature.
The difference in size is due to the different humidity levels of the
troposphere and the stratosphere.
Clear now?
josh halpern
charliew2
(cut)
> What's the problem? But [charliew2] feel free to just send me the spread
sheet.
> I'll convert it to equations and post them so you can verify I
> extracted them from the spread sheet correctly.
Phil, did you get the spreadsheet?
Phil Hays
>Phil, did you get the spreadsheet?
No, bug noted in signature. Please notice the difference and try
again.
--
Phil Hays
Phil-hays at posting domain should work for email
charliew2
> "charliew2" <char...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>> Phil, did you get the spreadsheet?
>
> No, bug noted in signature. Please notice the difference and try
> again.
OK. Let me know if you still didn't get it.