Looking through the wrong end of the climate telescope

Part of the problem here is the adherence to empirical and inductive proof of a relationship. In this case the relationship is between something well measured and something determined a priori to be not predictable. And, in this sense, a statement like "you can never say a particular hurricane is caused by global warming" is about as useful (and accurate) as saying "when did you stop beating your wife."

(Perhaps there is a better metaphor than that.)

As the post to which you refer points out, a modern day outbreak of tornadoes (or whatever) is part of the 21st century climate. The 21st century climate is one with higher temperatures globally and a lot of other stuff too that matters. If tornadoes were bunnies few people would object to the statement "with increased SST's in the Gulf of Mexico and a change in the nature of the jet stream we can expect to see a lot more bunnies in the central and eastern US in many years." Even though a particular bunny is not attributable to the release of huge amounts of fossil carbon.

I don't see the point of the article, nor do I see any alternate suggestions of what we should use to meausre the magnitude of climate change. Increasing CO2 has two direct effects, higher temps and more acidic oceans. Everything else is a side effect of those two changes.

Oh and btw, black swans are common here in Oz, white ones are rare.

more linkspam above.

It doesn't matter if you agree, disagree or make no sense whatsoever. Don't linkspam.

"In this case the relationship is between something well measured and something determined a priori to be not predictable. "

Sorry, greg, you'll have to show what is determined to be not predictable. A boiling pot bubbles when you heat it and this is completely predictable. The rate of bubbling is pretty predictable too. Yet where the bubbles turn up is not open to accurate prediction.

Hurricane events are not predictable, but the mechanism by which they form is understood well enough to draw conclusions:

higher SST, more energy for hurricanes.

Where would we be without Wow to watch for linkspam?

Regarding the post (and Tobis' recent forays into this line of thinking), we see with every extreme weather event people pointing to previous occurences in order to claim that we can't rule out natural variability. The recent tornadoes have a precedent in the (I think? 1930s) the recent Brisbane floods are often compared to the flooding in 1974, I'm sure there's also been precedent for the Russian bush fires, the Pakistani floods, the Sahel drought and the Rio mudslides.

A question for the 'natural variability' crowd, can they point to a time when we got so many extreme weather events in such a short period of time? In the previous paragraph I gave an example from each continent for the past 12 months but could also talk about mudslides and drought in China, floods in Poland and several other extreme weather events on top of these...

Alan #2,

I think the point is that the warming is *not* a direct effect of CO2 changes. The direct effect is the change in the radiation leaving the planet. This leads to increased heat retention which manifests as melting glaciers and icesheets, rising seas, more intense storms, higher average temperatures etc. The higher temps are simply one manifestation of the increased energy in the system.

blueshift,

Warming is a direct effect of the greenhouse effect. The warming is, in fact, the greenhouse effect. They are one in the same.

As CO2 and other GHG molecules absorb IR light emitted by the earth's surface, they almost as quickly transfer that energy to other molecules in the atmosphere via inelastic collisions. Since most of the molecules in the atmosphere cannot emit that energy via light due to strict quantum mechanical selection rules, it goes into their translational motion. By definition, increasing the translation motion of the molecules in a gas increases the gas's temperature.

Moreover, the greenhouse effect does not change the net top of the atmosphere flux of radiation. Measurements have even shown that, within their noise, there is net flux of radiation is zero over the last 30 years. The greenhouse effect changes the stratification of energy in the atmosphere. That is, there is more energy in the lower portions and less energy in the higher portions. In theory, as the stratosphere cools, it gives off the same amount of energy absorbed at lower altitudes, causing no net flux change at the TOA.

So there is not more 'energy in the system'. It's exactly the same amount of energy (dictated by the sun) that gets stratified differently as the concentration of GHG molecules changes. There are also changes in stratification of energy by latitude that are caused by the greenhouse effect, but the amount of energy IN the system is always set by incident sunlight. And the earth has internal mechanisms that get rid of it.

maxwell,
Thanks for the response.

I certainly have no expertise here, but I'm confused by your answer. We know that ocean heat content is rising, and ice is melting globally. How is that not "more energy in the system"?

blueshift,

I think you're equating 'the system' with the lower portions of the atmosphere and surface of the earth. That is where ocean heat content is rising (actually disputable at the moment, however) and other stuff.

I am pointing out that if you are discussing the top of the atmosphere (TOA) net flux of radiation (input solar radiation minus outgoing atmospheric emitted radiation), that value is zero. If there is no net flux at the TOA, then there cannot be a net gain in energy by the entire earth system.

As the lower portions of the atmosphere increase in temperature, the high altitudes decrease in temperature such that the net change in the total energy is zero when you integrate over a long enough period of time. I'd assume that this period of time is the time it takes for thermal equilibrium to occur on a layer by layer basis in the atmosphere accounting for ALL the energy transfer mechanisms.

Actually, as the lower portions of the atmosphere increase in temperature, they will emit MORE radiation just based on the fact that the high energy tails of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution put more density into the region where collisions can excite emitting states in GHG molecules. Because there are more GHG molecules in the atmosphere, however, that increased flux of radiation upward will 'see' more absorbers and the coldest layers (the layers of the atmosphere that actually emit radiation to space) get pushed up in altitude. Those coldest layers are colder than they would be otherwise, though.

I didn't mean to pick on your comment. But I have seen others making the same argument (notable Greg Laden) and I think it's better to be as rigorous in our understanding and conversations as possible.

I hope that is clearer.

I think, maxwell, we need to be careful about the difference between the system as it reestablishes equilibrium and the system after it has done so. Everything you describe pertains to the state when it has come back to equilibrium. As long as we are emitting more CO2, and indeed until (for practical purposes) a few decades after (not counting ice sheet response), the system is not in balance and actually yes, there is less energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere. It is precicted and has been measured.

Alos, at the end of the day there *is* more energy in the system, the vast majority of it expressed as warmer ocean waters.

[update] To be clear: when equilibrium is reestablished, there will be more energy in the system than now, and the same coming in and leaving as now.

"I think you're equating 'the system' with the lower portions of the atmosphere and surface of the earth."

No, I think you are confusing the system as being only stuff outside earth. The earth system is in the vast majority the lower portions of the atmosphere (where we get ALL our weather), the surface of the earth (where we live) and the oceans.

If those things are gaining more energy, then the system is gaining more energy unless you can show that the tiny capacity of the upper and middle atmosphere have a corresponding deficit.

A deficit is there, as predicted by the science (and is one of the fingerprints of it being GHG rather than solar forced), but the capacity of those elements are miniscule in comparison and the deficit small.

"I am pointing out that if you are discussing the top of the atmosphere (TOA) net flux of radiation (input solar radiation minus outgoing atmospheric emitted radiation), that value is zero"

You are pointing out a lie. The net flux is not zero at TOA, it is positive (to respect with a vector toward the earth). As cobe says, it's even been directly measured.

"Actually, as the lower portions of the atmosphere increase in temperature, they will emit MORE radiation"

It emits isotropically: down and up. Therefore heating the lower layers MORE.

But being deep in an obstructing atmosphere it radiates more down than up.

This is the reason why the denialist screed of "saturated gas!" is an explanation of why the denialists are wrong and GHGs can and do cause more warming.

That a denialist now ignores the oft-repeated screed to try and "prove" AGW false is not surprising.

"that increased flux of radiation upward will 'see' more absorbers and the coldest layers (the layers of the atmosphere that actually emit radiation to space) get pushed up in altitude. "

Sorry, that word salad is wrong on so many levels it can't even be explained, it needs the entire thing ripping down.

PV=nRT.

Higher temperatures, higher pressure and higher volume. Higher volume, higher TOA. But it doesn't get "pushed up" by anything other than convection. Gas atoms are NOT in orbit around the earth. No matter what some nutcase scientist wants to make out.

Coby,

I don't think I am confusing anything. The addition of GHG molecules to atmosphere and increases in surface temperatures are happening at such a slow pace that the atmosphere is never in dis-equilibrium when viewed from the TOA. Thermodynamically, the atmosphere is moving from one state of equilibrium to another by redistributing energy into its different layers. So the net flux of radiation at the TOA should be zero all the time.

As per the measurement of the net flux at the TOA, K&T's paper from the late 1990's serves as my reference. If I remember correctly, they inferred a 1% decrease in the outgoing radiation over the previous 30 years, but with more than 1% noise. So again, it's seems difficult to me to make an argument that a non-zero net flux at the TOA has been 'measured'. They also admitted that internal variability was playing a role in their analysis.

I would be interested in a couple papers that discuss the theoretical prediction that the earth system (all the layers of the atmosphere plus surface) should increase in energy. Do you have those references?

Wow,

that's really a great screen name for that comment. The first thing I thought was 'wow', people sure read into intentions with little to no proof of them.

I don't disagree with much of what you've said. Nor do I think it really invalidates anything I've already written.

You're equating 'the system' exactly the way I said blueshift was. Lower portions of the atmosphere, land surface and oceans. I appreciate you're being explicit about that though.

What is surprising is that you think that changes in the layers of the atmosphere that actually radiate to space aren't meaningful. If those layers, with their low density of molecules, are radiating more to cool because less energy makes it up to that altitude, then that will have an effect on the net flux at the TOA.

That's seems like very straightforward conservation of energy to me. As less energy (and more dissipative channels via additional GHG molecules) gets to the highest, least dense layers of the atmosphere, those layers will cool down to maintain thermal equilibrium. To cool they emit radiation.

End of story.

As for,

'That a denialist now ignores the oft-repeated screed to try and "prove" AGW false is not surprising.'

I think you may need a break from blogs. If you think that someone who has already pointed out that human emitted greenhouse gases should increase the temperature of the lower portions of the atmosphere is a 'denialist', you've been here too long and your filter is a bit too wound-up.

You and I may disagree on our judgment with respect to a specific measurement. I don't think that's some untenable situation in which name-calling provides any relief. If anything, it renders my opinion of your comment to the level of fairly useless because it makes me think that you're simply trying to disagree or find something wrong with every statement I make.

For example,

'But it (TOA) doesn't get "pushed up" by anything other than convection.'

I didn't say anything else provided that physical mechanism, but you wanted to disagree with what I had said, so you assumed a particular interpretation of my comment in lieu of attempting to find common ground, of which I think there is a great deal between our understandings of the situation.

So again, wow.

maxwell

Sorry, you have it wrong and coby was quite correct. This statement of yours:

"... So the net flux of radiation at the TOA should be zero all the time..."

is where you are confused.

If the net flux of radiation is positive (ie more in than out) the system will 'warm' until it reaches equilibrium. Similarly, if the net flux is negative then the system will cool down until it reaches equilibrium.

Certainly, the change in net flux is only small, and consequently the difference may 'appear' to be 'lost in the noise' if you measure it over a short period (say one or two years). But if you measure it over a statistically significant period, the difference will be distinguishable and measurable.

The current 'best' estimate of the net flux is 0.85W /sq m, although there are uncertainties in this as a result of instrumental errors etc. Here are a couple of papers which outline some of the recent research on the issue:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2797.1?prevSearch=%…

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1

Nice arguments guys. Anyway the earth is getting hotter and hotter and cooler and cooler. Its not normal anymore.

mandas,

thanks for the comment.

I still think that it's optimistic to claim that measurements of TOA fluxes have proven anything. From the first line of the conclusion section of the first paper you cite.

'The problem of experimentally determining the net TOA radiative energy balance of the earth and using this information to draw conclusions about any global planetary energy imbalances or to monitor the evolution of the earthâs climate is an extremely difficult one.'

That doesn't come across to the reader as being anything close to definitive with respect to a meaningful conclusion about either the value or meaning of a non-zero net flux at the TOA. Later, the authors state,

'More modern measurements in the 1990s and 2000s show variability (of the net flux) of between ±2 and ±4 W mâ2, depending on smoothing. Generally, this variability lies within a few W mâ2 of zero and is fairly symmetric about zero.'

So the variability in net flux at the TOA fluctuates around zero over time. An average of that variability over time would likely return a zero net flux.

Again, I'm not going to say you're wrong with your interpretation, despite the fact that you, and just about everyone else, is willing to claim the same of my position. I don't think we know enough to say one way or another. As far as the reversible, adiabatic expansion of the atmosphere is concerned, I don't see how, when averaged correctly, the atmosphere is not going from one equilibrium state to another. Then the question remains as to how to correctly spatially and temporally average both fluxes.

I don't know the answer to that question. I'll hazard a guess that no one does. But it seems rather over-simplified to claim that any non-zero net flux has been measured, especially as it seems that the uncertainty in these measurements is getting larger rather than smaller.

Maxwell "As far as the reversible, adiabatic expansion of the atmosphere is concerned, I don't see how, when averaged correctly, the atmosphere is not going from one equilibrium state to another."

Do you mean "One to another" or "From this back to this".

If you mean from one to another, then that's precisely what most people are concerned about. That a new atmospheric equilibrium will be incompatible with agriculture, cities, ports and the rest of civilisation and its infrastructure.

If you mean from this back to this, how long will it take? To avoid damage and misery occasioned by disruption to agriculture and current living arrangements (near oceans and rivers for example) we'd better get cracking on making sure that the time is as short as possible.

"As far as the reversible, adiabatic expansion of the atmosphere is concerned"

It's only reversible if you remove the forcings changing it.

So how long to remove that 30billion tons a year CO2 we've pumped out?

> An average of that variability over time would likely return a zero net flux.

Well if it does, that is a simple calculation. Why wasn't it done?

1) it was, but shows a net imbalance and you want to avoid admitting it
2) it wasn't because it was feared that the value would prove AGW
3) it wasn't because the author couldn't work out an average

Which one, maxie?

> I don't know the answer to that question. I'll hazard a guess that no one does.

You'd be wrong. In as much as anything can be known about the earth system, people do know. You don't, but you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

"What is surprising is that you think that changes in the layers of the atmosphere that actually radiate to space aren't meaningful."

What is surprising is that if someone were to say to you the sky is blue, you'd be going "so you don't think that the sun is yellow?".

You hear what you want to hear.

You ignored the massive size of the energy reservoir of the lower part of the earth system so you could say "but the stratosphere is cooling!"

Well, yes. that is because less energy is leaving the system. Therefore it's accumulating IN the system.

The "Wow" is idiots like you who don't understand a damn thing but take a huge number of words to express that lack of comprehension.

"I didn't say anything else provided that physical mechanism"

Convection doesn't push the atmosphere else people under a convective cloud would suffocate.

Misrepresentation of the science is all you have because the science doesn't support your desires.

What is surprising is that if someone were to say to you the sky is blue, you'd be going "so you don't think that the sun is yellow?". --Wow

Perfect analogy, and exactly the response that Max's passive-aggressive strategy for posting here demands.

I won't bore the forum presumptively but if anyone is interested I have some juicy Maxwellisms from the archive . . .

'I won't bore the forum presumptively but if anyone is interested I have some juicy Maxwellisms from the archive . . ' (Skip)

You mean presumptuously, not presumptively. I really must begin to compile an archive of Skip's many assaults on the English language, to be produced when he next finds fault with the writings of others.

Hey! Snowman is driving by again!

And I think I win the pool for the best assessment of his modus operandi, over at post #20 on this thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/global-warming-is-just-ho…

Any chance you might want to have a go at answering some of the questions that have been posed snowman, or is this just another example of your usual level of contribution?

snowman

"....You mean presumptuously, not presumptively. I really must begin to compile an archive of Skip's many assaults on the English language, to be produced when he next finds fault with the writings of others...."

Since skip wrote that at post #19, 2 hours before your contribution, I am sure you meant to write:
"....You MEANT presumptuously....", and not, "...You MEAN presumptuously....", since it was past tense.

People in glass houses, hey snowman?

I presume snowman has presumed skip meant presumptuously as he (skip) expected people to ask. Perhaps skip meant he had reasonable grounds* to demonstrate Maxwell's modus.

I wouldn't be so presumptious as to prejudge skips presentation but some prepubescent minds may presuppose they are preternaturally precogniscant especially if they have pressing preconceptions, show little precaution and are precipitate in preparing their predefined pretentious premiss under the pretext of demonstrating pre-eminence but actually providing proof of preponderant prejudice and preoccupation with preposterous prescriptive predestined preferences, the prestidigitators.

Doh! Skipped an apostrophe. That'll be "skip's" not "skips".

Chris

That was precious!!

I presume snowman has presumed skip meant presumptuously as he (skip) expected people to ask. Perhaps skip meant he had reasonable grounds* to demonstrate Maxwell's modus.

Naturally you all miss the point. Skip's countless mistakes would scarcely be worth mentioning (and it would quickly become my life's work if I were really to apply myself) were it not for the fact that he is forever - and rather nastily - ridiculing the use of English by others.

What gives the thing an added piquancy, of course, is the fact that Skip endlessly boasts about being a college 'professor'. True, it is at some obscure desert seminary, but Prof Skip seems to think it gives him a certain cachet.

Any chance you might want to have a go at answering some of the questions that have been posed snowman, or is this just another example of your usual level of contribution?

Snowman, even the spambots are after you!

(I hope Coby keeps the contribution from our friends at orji...ilek.gen.tr the timing of it is just perfect.)

[as requested, but I did neuter it! - coby]

What gives the thing an added piquancy, of course, is the fact that Skip endlessly boasts about being a college 'professor'.

Quote one time I have made such a boast.

Exactly, you presumptuous, pompous pom. You are a liar, even if a generally grammatically correct one.

You have made one--*one*--meaningful contribution on this forum you limey (no offense, Chris) twit: correcting my use of the word "loathe/loath".

And for the record, "presumptive" *is* the word and shade of meaning I intended.

How many times did you correct Richard Wakefield's (a.k.a "Mike Tyson") slaughtered diction, you hypocritical sack of crumpets?

I'm glad Chelsea ate shit and I hope my great-great-great-great-great-great grandad snuffed yours at Trenton.

Tide gauges refute alarmism: http://oi56.tinypic.com/11jsp5i.jpg
So do thermometers: http://oi51.tinypic.com/357pvme.jpg
So does the global average: http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg
So do dozens of temperature reconstructions, e.g.: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2upvlvm.jpg
So do serious left wing intellectuals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y
But at least psychopaths support it: http://oi54.tinypic.com/wrm3xc.jpg

snowman at #27:

"...Naturally you all miss the point...."

Nope. We all got the point perfectly. Your only contribution to this website is to conduct personal attacks on the likes of skip and myself - skip especially. You never contribute science, and you consistently fail to answer any questions posed regarding your views.

One of your favourite modes of attack is to nit-pick language. You are a pedant - nothing more. Of course, if you are going to be pedantic, it is fundamentally important that you do not make the sort of basic errors that you are forever accusing others of making. Unfortunately, you have not done so.

It seems, not only are you a failure with regard to your scientific views, you are also a failure as a pedant. Tell us, is there ANYTHING you are good at?

Linkspam, same account doing the rounds on other scienceblogs (#33 above)

Chris #4

"A question for the 'natural variability' crowd, can they point to a time when we got so many extreme weather events in such a short period of time"?

Can you point out a time in the past when we had 7 billion people on the planet, living in huge heat island metropolises, huge slum areas of tens of millions of people, with virtually no building codes? Me neither. This is all relatively new in history. Geologically, we laugh at your puny 100 to 200 year memories (if that long in most fields). If you step back and look at the earth over a much longer history, there were hurricanes in the Ordovician 480 million years ago, about 20 different forests covered by volcanic ash in Yellowstone National Park millions of years ago, and devastating earthquakes and ice ages as recently as 10,000 years ago. The real question about global warming has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it exists, but how much of our freedoms and money are we willing to part with to give to governments in an attempt to micromanage a dynamic planet, with absolutely no assurances that they can produce any beneficial changes?

"Can you point out a time in the past when we had 7 billion people on the planet"

So by the very act of being alive, you're saying that humans change the climate dramatically.

And *we're* called "alarmists"!!!

So, do you reckon that it was all the British Empire in 1934? You don't have to go back to the age of Henry V to give an answer to Chris' question.

That you can't think of one in the past 80 years or so proves his point, doesn't it.

"Geologically, we laugh at your puny 100 to 200 year memories (if that long in most fields)"

You're not a geography. You're a puny human living for about 80 years.

"with absolutely no assurances that they can produce any beneficial changes? "

You have absolutely no assurances that your insurance policy will pay out in the event of an insured accident happening.

Yet you're willing to pay.

"Tide gauges refute alarmism: http://oi56.tinypic.com/11jsp5i.jpg"

Looks to me they're showing 200mm rise over 150 years. That'd be 1.5mm/year.

Sea levels rising.

"So do thermometers: http://oi51.tinypic.com/357pvme.jpg"

Copenhagen, for example, seems to be showing a trend of +3C.

The others seem to add up to an average of around 2C over the 200 years.

Temperatures rising.

"So does the global average: http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg"

Sorry, global averages show rising trends:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

"So do dozens of temperature reconstructions, e.g.: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2upvlvm.jpg"

Sorry, nope, they don't say the current warming is unprecedented:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And we're 0.2 above the top of that figure now.

"So do serious left wing intellectuals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y"

Appeal to an irrelevant authority.

"But at least psychopaths support it: http://oi54.tinypic.com/wrm3xc.jpg"

Sorry, so because some people with problems believe something, how does this prove it's wrong. I'd bet the ALL support the round-earth theory.

You've managed with the only proofs you've turned up (so neglecting the irrelevant rhetoric) have proven you wrong.

Well done.