Renowden’s foot again finds his mouth

Renowden continually misquotes me.

I wrote about the summer low achieved by Arctic sea ice. He maligns me for saying the ice didn’t melt until winds pushed it away into warmer water.

Gareth, criticise me for giving voice to heresy; and by all means, fault my scholarship, my knowledge of climatic or arctic affairs; feel free to mock my “disconnection from reality”; I hope you even pull out a paper by Notz and Marotzke and share the authors’ speculation that, as is apparently obvious to the rest of you, “the most likely explanation for the linear trend [in sea ice decline] during the satellite era from 1979 onwards is the almost linear increase in CO2 concentration during that period.”

But I didn’t say it. NASA did.

So now please kindly redirect all that rude, inaccurate mockery to the proper quarter.

UPDATE 30 SEP

Renowden’s friend Rob Taylor, in comments below, cites one John Yackel in Science Daily. Yackel makes a couple of howlers.

First, he contradicts NASA and insists on talking about the summer Arctic ice “melt”. Obviously he didn’t get NASA’s memo explaining about the storm that shifted the sea ice before it melted.

Second, he asserts that, with the ice gone and the sea surface exposed to the air, “more moisture off the ocean’s surface” will “get into the atmosphere”, making for more violent storms.

Remarkable. Here’s a geographer who doesn’t know that the amount of water vapour in the air depends on the temperature. I learnt that in high school but somehow he missed it at university.

But he also apparently imagines that “the water vapor in the atmosphere makes for more violent storms” – it doesn’t need a higher temperature at all! Well, it’s a new concept, but I’m not sure how it works.

I think it’s nonsense.

Finally, I observe that Rob Taylor claims I’m wrong about something, but none of our friends from the dark side deny that Renowden disagrees with NASA. Renowden is wrong to call this record ice disappearance a “melt” and blame it on global warming and therefore on our considerable, unforgivable sins.

180
Leave a Reply

avatar
28 Comment threads
152 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
MagooAndyRob TaylorRichard C (NZ)Nick Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

RT, before you launch into yet another glorification of the virtues of ignorance, you may like to sit back, engage some neurons, and watch this 10-minute video on climate feedbacks.

WARNING: Learning may occur

http://vimeo.com/1709110

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

We know about the Arctic ocean ice/albedo feedback that brought about the SIE decline thanks to Dr Maslowski in 2006 Rob, set off by the ’98 El Nino – nothing anthropogenic.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Nice pictures. Interesting historical footage, but where was the bit about climate feedbacks?

Basically, content-free propaganda

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Looks like there was some problem with editing the post, and its gone up twice – the second link is the correct one, but the Svalbard video is good, too.

Here’s the feedbacks link again:

http://vimeo.com/1709110

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Whatever random concatenation of denialist psuedoscience you “know” today is of little interest to me, RC; save it for your therapist.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Since I watched the Svalbard video, here are some comments.

There was an interesting suggestion that warming started on Svalbard in the early 20th Century, and that some people though it might have been caused by the munitions fired in the world wars

There was a coal mine set on fire, left to burn for decades. I am not sure of the relevance of this, except that it is *bad*. Maybe some of the soot from the coal burning resulted in some glacial melt?

The video claimed that Arctic polar bear populations are in decline
I thought the opposite was true.

There was mention of the global cooling scare, then the global warming scare, the “consensus” and an allusion to Hansen without mentioning his name

There was some moralising about how future generations would see us.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

We’ve long ago figured out that you have “little interest” in evaluating evidence of climate change cause, natural vs anthropogenic Rob – that’s been self evident.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Well your movie shows the theory Rob, but what actual evidence do you have that these positive feedbacks are occurring? So far the theory is failing dismally due to a lack of evidence. There is no tropospheric hot spot to show high level atmospheric water vapour which is needed to prove positive feedback, and low level water vapour more than likely has a negative feedback effect. This lack of upper level water vapour and it’s associated positive feedback mechanism is reflected in the failure of the models to accurately predict the future temperature rises. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/mckitrick-models-observations-rss-msu-uah-radiosondes-flat.jpg The movie has lots of ‘ifs’, ‘coulds’, and ‘potential runaway greenhouse’, but lacks any empirical evidence to back it up. The real empirical evidence points to the fact that there is no positive feedback from water vapour, therefore AGW has only a minor effect on the climate. Prove the tropospheric hot spot and maybe people will listen to you, or alternatively, explain how the temperature can rise beyond 1.2C for every doubling of atmospheric CO2 without positive feedback from water vapour. Otherwise the possibility of your movie becoming reality is extremely remote, and there is no scientific… Read more »

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Re polar bears, Andy: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/polar-bears/what-the-experts-say/expert-q-and-a/are-polar-bear-populations-booming Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, chief scientist with Polar Bears International and USGS polar bear project leader for 30 years. Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren’t their populations increasing: in fact, booming? A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.* One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses. Back then, the best we had over most of the polar bear’s range were uneducated guesses. Polar bear science has come a long way since then. We do know (and I have… Read more »

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Magoo, it is truly risible that you claim to be the arbiter of what scientific evidence is, or is not available, yet can only quote a journalist to support your claims.

Do you have any scientific training yourself, or are you just a gullible parrot? What scientific research can you provide to back up your extraordinary claims?

I suggest that you try to educate yourself, if you dare; start with an introductory climate text, or the following links:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

Andy
Guest
Andy

But the most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming.

That has to be a “Quote of the week” candidate

Andy
Guest
Andy

So just to be clear here, even though Polar Bear populations are not on the decline, this is “irrelevant” because what happened in the past is irrelevant.

Because habitat is decreasing because of “global warming”, we can assume that at some stage in the future Polar Bear populations will decline

Therefore we can say Polar Bear populations are declining by extrapolation out to a hypothetical period in the future when Polar Bear populations are actually declining.

The future is relevant, the past is irrelevant, even though we know quite a lot about the past and very little about the future.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Hmm, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than now, and for longer, yet we still have polar bears with us.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Of course, all that happened in the past, so it’s irrelevant.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

SkS asks:-

So, does the “hot spot” actually exist? That is to say, is the tropsosphere (sic) actually warming as expected?

Their answer is from the um..er..shuffle..cough..no grab bag:-

Unfortunately, the answer to this is much less cut and dry.

Just “more or less”:-

…things are behaving more or less as we’d expect.

Actually less:-

http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUTrop.png

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Actually Rob, the hot spot graph is from the US Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis & Assessment Report 1.1 2006, chapter 5, page 116. The graphs of the models are from McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series” in press at Atmospheric Science Letters. Yet to be debunked as far as I know. Those two papers back up my claims. I don’t know why you’re mentioning a journalist for, the fact that Jo Nova mentions them on her website doesn’t mean she wrote them. I’m well aware of skepticalscience’s articles on the matter. I also notice that he never mentions the peer-reviewed papers that debunk every one of his papers on the issue, I’ve always wondered why. What Cook is doing is sidetracking the issue into a warming upper troposphere/cooling stratosphere issue which is beside the point – it’s much simpler than that. The tropospheric hotspot should be proof of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour, regardless of the ‘fingerprint’ argument. The tropospheric hot spot does not exist therefore evidence of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapour doesn’t… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

One other thing Rob, there’s no need to get nasty or rude about it, I’m just the messenger. If you have a problem with the empirical data or those who supply it in peer reviewed articles then I suggest you take it up with them. It’s hardly my fault the water vapour feedback theory has no evidence to back it up.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Temperature change in the upper troposphere 1948 – 2006

http://climatechange1.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/upper-troposphere.jpg?w=500&h=307

The atmosphere above 400 hPa (the “hotspot” zone) is not storing warmth.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Magoo, you’re a pleasure to read – clarity and restraint exemplified. Thanks.

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

I find it amusing that AGW deniers usually dismiss climate modelling out of hand, EXCEPT for that reported in AR4 that indicated a tropospheric hot spot, which they seize upon with squeals of glee, claiming it to be the “smoking gun” that somehow invalidates 150 years of scientific observation and experiment.

Which it is does not.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/

Here are the basics:

1) Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824).

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus has the capacity to warm the planet (Tyndall, 1858).

3) By burning fossil fuels, humans activities are increasing the greenhouse gas concentration of the Earth (Arrhenius, 1896).

4) Increased greenhouse gas concentrations lead to more heat being trapped, warming the planet further (Arrhenius, 1896).

So, guys, where is the research that contradicts these 19th century results? I’m happy to wait….

Andy
Guest
Andy

The main problem I have with this Polar Bear argument is that there are around 20,000 bears alive. Their habitat is spread around the very large area we know as “The Arctic” which includes parts of Canada, Russia, Norway etc.

It seems we would have to remove a very large part of this habitat for it to impact a population of 20,000, which I would have thought would migrate to where the food is

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

So Rob, which among those 19th-century papers conducts their experiments on the earth’s atmosphere as a whole?

You did claim “150 years of scientific observation and experiment”, didn’t you? So where is the observational evidence?

And why did you exclude Arrhenius (1906), by the way? It updates 1896.

I note the quick move on your part to try to divert attention away from the lack of the hot-spot. And it’s not “deniers” who predicted the existence of the hot-spot, Rob, it was the IPCC. Are you wanting to cherry-pick which IPCC predictions you’d like to examine, based purely on their actual outcome?

Andy
Guest
Andy

None of that research makes any statement about positive feedbacks

A good number of sceptics agree with most of the above. It is the positive feedback argument that leads to high climate sensitivity to CO2 and therefore to dangerous warming

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Nobody disputes your points 1 to 4 Rob, but where is proof of the water vapour feedback? The temperature can only rise 1.2C (maximum) per doubling of total atmospheric CO2 (not just man’s). The current total atmospheric levels are somewhere around 397 parts per million (ppm) from memory, & to raise the temp by 1.2C the levels will need to rise to 794ppm. After this, for it to rise another 1.2C it will need to rise to 1588ppm, etc. CO2 has a diminishing ability to absorb infra red as it’s concentrations rise, and is a weak greenhouse gas as a result. The majority of warming is supposed to be through positive feedbacks which are supposed to amplify the warming by a factor of approximately 3 times, most of which is supposed to be due to water vapour which is a strong greenhouse gas. It doesn’t matter what the cause of the hot spot is, whether it is natural, man’s fault, a volcano, or whatever, the fact that it doesn’t exist means there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour. Without the water vapour positive feedback there is no AGW. You need… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“….where is the research that contradicts these 19th century results?” It’s the “results” that are the problem in the first place Rob so there’s not much point looking for contra research. Dr Matthias Kleespies explains:- “Tyndall thought he had measured absorption when he experimented with different gases (among them carbon dioxide and air freed from carbon dioxide) but had apparently only measured opacity which, in contrast to absorption, still includes a measure of reflected radiation. Other scientists, like Arrhenius, appear to have misunderstood Tyndall and also Fourier and additionally relied on inappropriate data sets to develop their theory” And, “According to [Timothy] Casey, Arrhenius had misquoted Fourier, “who maintained that closed spaces such as hotboxes (and by extension greenhouses) retained their heat by cutting off circulation with the cooler atmosphere.” Perhaps it is thus that it took almost 100 years for another scientist to “rediscover” Fourier’s findings and interpretations. In 1909, Robert W. Wood performed a very simple yet clear-cut experiment to determine why a real greenhouse made of glass is warmer than its surroundings. Wood asked himself: “Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Nobody disputes your points 1 to 4 Rob”

I do Magoo. Remember that the debate spectrum is (as I see it), Warmist (CO2 forcing + positive feedback on temperature) – Lukewarmer (CO2 forcing, indeterminant feedback on temperature) – Heretic (negligible CO2 forcing, negative feedback on temperature). I’m firmly in the heretic camp and I find the lukewarmer stance more closely aligned with warmists than heretics.

The 19th century endeavours that Rob cites in 1 to 4 have no bearing on present day radiative heat transfer physics. In terms of CO2, that has been developed by Hottell and Leckner from which we know (or should) that CO2 forcing is all but exhausted by about 200 ppm.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”1) Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and re-emit much of it back toward the surface, thus warming the planet (less heat escapes; Fourier, 1824)” Fast forward to 2010 [Warning: Nahleisms]:- ‘Total emissivity of carbon dioxide and Its effect on tropospheric temperature’ Didactic Article By Nasif Nahle May 12, 2010 Abstract: By applying generally accepted algorithms on radiative heat transfer, verified through experimentation by Hottel(1), Leckner(2) and other contemporary scientists and engineers(3)(4)(5), I have found that carbon dioxide molecules posses a low total emissivity at the current density of CO2 in the atmosphere. http://www.biocab.org/ECO2.pdf Quoting page 10:- The change of temperature caused by the CO2 at its current concentration in the atmosphere, with the temperature of the air at 308 K: To obtain the change of temperature caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere at its current concentration we must apply the following formula: ΔT = Q / m (Cp) ΔT = Change of temperature Q = Amount of thermal energy in transit from the surface to the air m = mass of carbon dioxide per cubic meter (taken from its current density which is 0.00069 Kg/m3) Cp = Heat Capacity… Read more »

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Too bad, RC, even your own “side” aren’t interested in your raves – you need to either publish, or shut up.

[mockery removed – RT]

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Once again Rob doesn’t answer any questions or engage in intelligent conversation, but merely insults people, and tries to divert attention away from the missing hot-spot.

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

At last, a clear exposition of a valid point; thankyou, Mr. Magoo, perhaps you’d like to visit Hot Topic sometime?

Re climate sensitivity, the lower bound is observationally constrained by several independent lines of evidence, as per:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/ice-age-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity/

As I’m sure you know, a low climate sensitivity disposes of the MWP; I’d be interested in your views on that as well.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“…where is the research that contradicts these 19th century results?”

Here

Nahle’s references:-

1. Hottel, H. C. Radiant Heat Transmission-3rd Edition. 1954. McGraw-Hill, NY.
2. Leckner, B. The Spectral and Total Emissivity of Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Combustion and Flame. Volume 17; Issue 1; August 1971, Pages 37-44.
3. Manrique, José Ángel V. Transferencia de Calor. 2002. Oxford University Press. England.
4. Modest, Michael F. Radiative Heat Transfer-Second Edition. 2003. Elsevier Science, USA and Academic Press, UK.
5. Pitts, Donald and Sissom, Leighton. Heat Transfer. 1998. McGraw-Hill, NY.
6. Chilingar; G. V., Khilyuk, L. F.; Sorokhtin, O. G. Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects; Volume 30, Issue: 1 January 2008; pages 1 – 9.

Eggert’s references:-

i Schumann, Reinhardt, Metallurgical Engineering, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, 1952 (Hottel’s curves)
ii Bejan, Adrian; Kraus, Allan D. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons., 2003 Page 618 (Leckner’s curves)

You just have to look Rob.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“you need….publish”

No I don’t “need” to publish. There’s already a body of publications (that you’re denying Rob) and it’s just a matter of applying that work to atmospheric conditions. Climate science makes no recourse to that body of established science, needless to say the IPCC have led govts around the world on a merry dance that’s distorting economics based on fallacy.

8 of those publications are listed here:-

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/09/renowdens-foot-again-finds-his-mouth/#comment-122822

I’m guessing Gareth Renowden is oblivious to those publications since he subscribes to the “160 years of science” (his words) that you’ve presented (except for anything from 1954 onwards). You might like to alert him Rob – then he can deny them too.

Andy
Guest
Andy

As I’m sure you know, a low climate sensitivity disposes of the MWP

I didn’t know. Does that work without circular reasoning that CO2 is a major driver of climate?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

SkS – “How sensitive is our climate?”

Using IPCC CO2 forcing for the 21st century:

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

2000 369.52 Co
2011 391.57 C

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

dF = 5.35 ln(391.57/369.52 )
dF = 0.3 C

Climate sensitivity (from SkS)
dT = λ*dF where dT = 0, λ is climate sensitivity and dF is 0.3 C
0 = λ*0.3
λ = 0

Climate sensitivity to CO2 is 0 this century according to the IPCC CO2 forcing expression. CO2 may not be a forcing of course. Me, I think it’s natural variability doing the forcing.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Have you actually read any of these references Richard? If so perhaps you would consider sharing the relevant parts.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Have you actually read any of these references Richard?” No I haven’t (but I do have other heat transfer texts than those listed i.e. it’s a huge field) and neither has anyone at the IPCC (or if they have they haven’t let on) but the likes of Eggert and Nahle have. Viskanta and Mengo referenced what was available in 1987, hence:- RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER IN COMBUSTION SYSTEMS R. VISKANTA and M. P. MENGO, 1987 https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/un/ipcc-science/#comment-117639 Abstract An adequate treatment of thermal radiation heat transfer is essential to a mathematical model of the combustion process or to a design of a combustion system. This paper reviews the fundamentals of radiation heat transfer and some recent progress in its modeling in combustion systems. Topics covered include radiative properties of combustion products and their modeling and methods of solving the radiative transfer equations. Examples of sample combustion systems in which radiation has been accounted for in the analysis are presented. In several technologically important, practical combustion systems coupling of radiation to other modes of heat transfer is discussed. Research needs are identified and potentially promising research topics are also suggested. Quoting:- “An in-depth review of the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…perhaps you would consider sharing the relevant parts” Not from the texts but this paper is has some relevant parts (for the time being):- EVALUATION OF EMISSIVITY CORRELATIONS FOR H20-C02-N2/AIR MIXTURES AND COUPLING WITH SOLUTION METHODS OF THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION N. Lallemant*, A. Sayret and R. Weber 1996 http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/users/papers/engr/ernesto/brazw/Project/Other/Research/Soot/Lallemant_EmissivityCorrelations.pdf 3. CORRELATIONS FOR PREDICTING THE TOTAL EMISSIVITY AND ABSORPTIVITY OF COMBUSTION GASES Emissivity correlations are usually limited to calculations of the CO, and H20 total emissivity. Mathematically, these models appear either in the form of the weighted sum of gray gases model (WSGGM)4-‘5 or in the form of polynomials.‘-3 Existing WSGGM are somewhat less general than the polynomial correlations since coefficients for the WSGGM have to be recalculated for each H20/ CO1 partial pressure ratio. Polynomial correlations such as those of Leckner2 and Modak3 do not feature such shortcomings; they involve many more fitted coefficients (e.g. 48 for each species in Modak’s model) but retain all the generality required to model total emissivity of gas mixtures. Both types of correlations are accurate enough and simple to use in engineering calculations. However, they are often limited to total emissivity calculations in volumes of gas… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Samoht (Thomas) has made an appearance at #7 (my emphasis):- Thomas October 9, 2012 at 6:48 pm Makka: What counts is your own actions in your own back-yard and your own country. The time to point fingers at others and sit back to watch the climate disaster unfold is over. Unless we make fast pace towards a sustainable future we are hypocrites demanding that others go the mile first. Your arguments are simply cheep straw man points towards a lame attempt to justify inaction which we see all the time from the copy/paste denier trolls. BTW Richard C2 is an “old friend” (quotation marks well earned) who’s incoherent pseudo-scientific ramblings many of us have witnessed for years. The man still believes that atmospheric conditions do not contribute to ocean temperature and heat content and has evidently no mental concept of net heat transfer. He typifies the hard core ramblers from the denier circus who will simply not take a step back from their personal beliefs to see the evidence that is accumulating all the time. http://hot-topic.co.nz/prat-watch-7-the-unbearable-rightness-of-being-wrong/#comment-34795 Samoht doesn’t deign to grace us with his presence here anymore – I’m sad. But if he… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

but then the main post starts with

The carefully cultivated cocoon of ignorance over at New Zealand’s own tiny corner of the climate crank echo chamber has been glinting in the harsh light of reality in recent weeks

so I’d hardly expect a polite thread.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Hi Rob. The reason I avoided Richard C’s points was due to the fact that you’d use them to avoid confronting the water vapour positive feedback issue. I’m sure Richard might very well be right, but it’s a distraction from the real issue of AGW theory failing without the water vapour amplification.

The issue is nothing other than what evidence there is for positive feedback from water vapour. Why is this the only relevant issue? Because without it there is no AGW. You can’t claim AGW without addressing this problem because it’s the major part of the AGW theory – CO2 is just the minor contributor.

As for Hot Topic, I prefer discussions with manners thank you.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Correction.

dF = 5.35 ln(391.57/369.52 )
dF = 0.3 C

Should be: dF = 0.3 [W.m2]

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Clive Best had the old GISS Model II running on his PC and there’s also a low-cost EdGCM package that approximates the model that runs on a PC too. Best:- “I have installed the model on a MAC mini running OS10.6.8 with a 2.4Ghz Core2 processor and 2 Gbytes of memory. The full model simulation took 33 hours to complete, generated over 2 Gbytes of output” http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3669 The interesting part though – for the purposes of this pursuit – is this:- “Radiative transfer through the atmosphere uses profiles for clouds/water vapor, CO2 etc. and a model for ocean and land albedo is included. Much of this is summarised nicely in a (Masters) thesis I found on the Internet by Melissa Kelly” 2. A Survey of Climate Sensitivity and Response Rates in EdGCM, Mellisa Kelly, Dickinson College, Carlisle PA http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?cluster=891358878928738105&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 It’s the “profiles” for CO2 that are critical – how are they derived, what are they, and how are they applied? Kelly page 5:- —————— In order to reduce the complexity of the climate system enough that it can be simulated on a computer, global climate models divide the Earth into a three-dimensional grid… Read more »

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Yes, Magoo, I understood the issue that you raised, and have provided two links that review the evidence for climate feedbacks that act to constrain the lower bound for climate sensitivity to at least 1.5 C for a doubling of CO2.

Here they are again:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/ice-age-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity/

Of course, we need to distinguish between the fast-feedback sensitivity and the long-term “Earth-system” sensitivity, which paleoclimate studies show is higher than the short-term value.

From that paleo evidence, we do indeed appear to be heading toward an ice-free world unless we can draw down atmospheric CO2 before the feedbacks become self-sustaining (if they are not already).

So, what do you now think of the evidence for positive feedbacks? I do not see any support there for the common denialist position that net positive feedbacks are negligible!

Andy
Guest
Andy

The SkS link that Rob provides has a link to Forster and Gregory (2006) which is broken (404).

This is unfortunate as this is apparently one of the few papers on climate sensitivity that relies on empirical evidence rather than from models

Furthermore, the F&G sensitivity values were amplified by the IPCC (over and above the original paper’s values) by using some Bayesian “techniques”. Nic Lewis presented this information on Judith Curry’s blog a while back

This is discussed here amongst other places

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Thus the integrated assessment model (PAGE09 IAM) is distorted from the outset.

Thanks for this BH link Andy, I hadn’t caught up with this.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Rob, what you’ve given is theory as to what they think the feedbacks should be and why they think it should be that way. In the case of water vapour there is no evidence whatsoever to back up their theory which is why it is wrong. John Cook says the following:

‘If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?’

Cook’s trying to say that it has to be positive feedback from water vapour otherwise we’d still be in the ice age. Empirical evidence proves him wrong in the current circumstances due to a missing hot spot – it isn’t water vapour feedback and the science proves it conclusively. An assumption has been made and it’s been proven wrong, otherwise you’d have to ignore the empirical evidence of 2 satellites, over 30,000,000 radiosondes, and the temperature records that reflect their findings, in preference of baseless speculation for a theory that doesn’t fit the observed reality.

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Rob, what you’ve given is theory as to what they think the feedbacks should be and why they think it should be that way. In the case of water vapour there is no evidence whatsoever to back up their theory which is why it is wrong.

A weak response, Magoo – you merely repeat your original claim, which shows you have either not read, or not understood, the scientific evidence for a lower bound to climate sensitivity.

Which, I guess, explains why you prefer this intellectual backwater, where “truthiness” reigns supreme.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/417670/august-09-2012/who-s-honoring-me-now—-psychonomic-bulletin—review

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

Indeed it will, Andy, indeed it will…

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Rob Taylor:

A weak response, Magoo – you merely repeat your original claim, which shows you have either not read, or not understood, the scientific evidence for a lower bound to climate sensitivity.

This is a very typical response from Rob. He himself doesn’t understand his own scientific claims, merely parroting John Cook (a cartoonist) and Real Climate (an activist site).

How about you discuss the actual science, Rob, as laid out in real scientific papers? That is what everybody else is doing, or hadn’t you noticed?

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Example of RealClimate advocacy when threatened by actual science:

Email 2743
Meanwhile, I suspect you’ve both seen the latest attack against his Yamal work by McIntyre. Gavin and I (having consulted also w/ Malcolm) are wondering what to make of this, and what sort of response—if any—is necessary and appropriate. So far, we’ve simply deleted all of the attempts by McIntyre and his minions to draw attention to this at RealClimate.

So when they can’t answer the questions, they delete the questions.

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

How about you discuss the actual science, Rob, as laid out in real scientific papers? That is what everybody else is doing, or hadn’t you noticed? As a matter of fact, Bob, no, I had not noticed any such thing. I do see, however, frequent recourse to the hoary old catechisms of the Church of Denial, such as the “missing hot spot disproves AGW” and the “Arctic ice loss was caused by a storm”. Strangely – given the spirit of scientific enquiry that you say pervades this site – none of you seem interested in what powered that storm, which is the same thing that is causing the ice to melt – warmer sea water in the Arctic. Perhaps this will help you get up to speed: The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland — the warmest water in at least 2,000 years — are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder. The study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard — an… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Ok Rob. No evidence for positive feedback from water vapour? Nobody else has been able to do so either so it was no surprise. No hot spot = no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour = no AGW (no cause therefore no effect). Avoiding the issue by substituting the broader subject of climate sensitivity in the place of evidence for WV positive feedback shows that you have no evidence. How can people believe in AGW theory when there’s no evidence for the biggest part of it? That is why those who believe in AGW avoid this issue like the plague. I won’t be back for a while as I have two major papers that I need to complete and will be too busy. In the meantime perhaps you’d like to consider the issue of what evidence there is for water vapour positive feedback alone, and why the broader subject of theoretical climate sensitivity is not a viable substitute for the issue. Find evidence of the hot spot or water vapour positive feedback – without them all the articles in the world on climate sensitivity are nothing but speculative guesses, as are the… Read more »

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

So we see waters in the Arctic have risen over the last 150 years. This is no surprise to anyone, since this has been measured everywhere due to the recovery from the LIA.

However, nowhere is any observational evidence submitted that Arctic storms have been growing stronger as a result. It is also unlikely to be unprecedented if true, as we know the Arctic was as warm in the 1930/40s (Howat 2007), and also in the MWP, the RWP and the Minoan WP.

Try again.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

But you can help me with one thing, Bob; has NZCSET paid NIWA’s $100 K + legal costs yet?

I don’t know. You’ll have to ask them.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean” And where did the NA Ocean heat originate? ‘Coupled Response of Global Climate to Solar Cycle Forcing’ Yafang Zhong 2005 http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/resources/publications/pdfs/CCR_917.pdf Page 14:- “Meanwhile in North Pacific, the solar signals propagate along the subtropical gyre. Negative anomalies emerge with Kuroshio extension at lag 25-year (fig. 13c). They start to travel northeastward, and turn southward at lag 30-year (fig. 13d) after bumping onto the eastern boundary. ” The “solar signals” originate from cycles described page 4:- “The appreciable role of solar forcing is most clear in upper 450-meter ocean heat content in case of Gleissberg cycle. The correlation between Gleissberg cycle and HC450 is high up to .6, in other word, 36% of total variance is attributable to solar forcing. This fairly high correlation is a hint for a plausible role of slow solar variations in ocean-atmosphere coupled system.” Hence, THE SOLAR WOLF-GLEISSBERG CYCLE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE EARTH Shahinaz M. Yousef 2000 http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf From the abstract:- “The Solar Wolf-Gleissberg cycle stimulate solar… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Perhaps this will help you get up to speed:”

The title of the article is: ‘Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic, according to new study’ January 27, 2011

“up to speed”? “new study”? This is OLD news, just search Google Scholar:-

arctic+atmosphere+temperature+warming+north+atlantic+ocean

1st page returned,

‘Arctic warming – Evolution and Spreading of the 1990s warm event in the Nordic Seas and the Arctic Ocean’

Karcher et al 2003 http://epic.awi.de/4807/

“The focus of the work presented here is on the temperature rise which occurred in the Atlantic layer of the Arctic Ocean in the early 1990s.The model favorably reproduces the development and subsequent propagation of temperature anomalies in the water of Atlantic origin in the Northwest European Shelf area and along the Norwegian coast. These anomalies propagate into the Arctic Ocean via the Barents Sea and the Fram Strait”

“Intensified boundary currents during the high NAO state in the first half of the 1990s significantly influence amplitude and speed of the temperature anomalies inside the Arctic Ocean”

# # #

What new advance of any import was made by Spielhagen et al and reported in 2011 that the work of Karcher et al in 2003 had not already provided?

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

BS, Magoo; climate sensitivity parametrises net forcing, including feedbacks, and is constrained by several independent lines of evidence, which I have provided references to.

Rather than deal with those, you seek refuge in the short-term noise in the system, ignoring the increasingly clear long-term signal, then do a runner… most impressive!

As for Bob’s invocation of the LIA, what, pray, is the net forcing behind the “rebound”?

Or does it just, like, um, you know, kinda happen, man…?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”As for Bob’s invocation of the LIA, what, pray, is the net forcing behind the “rebound”?”

A 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity (including 50% rise in UV) since the Maunder minimum (IPCC 0.12 W/m2).

‘Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum’

Krivova, Vieira and Solanki, 2010

http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/j317.pdf

Rob Taylor
Guest
Rob Taylor

—– the Maunder minimum was in the 17th century!

Andy
Guest
Andy

The Maunder Minimum falls within the climatically cooler period of the “Little Ice Age”, during which temperatures were particularly low over continents in the Northern hemisphere (especially in winter). It has long been suspected that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum was one of the causes of the Little Ice Age, although other factors like a small drop in greenhouse gas concentrations around 1600 and strong volcanic eruptions during that time likely played a role as well.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/

Post Navigation