The Big Yin James

More a college level experiment. The original work was done during the devlopment of IR guided air-to-air missiles and the data is now available in the HITRANS database. The atmosphere behaves like the long tube stood on end with A at the surface and B at the top of the atmosphere.

Whoever said "The science is settled" was speaking loosely. There is always more to learn.

However, anyone with A level physics can check the basics. There are five ndependent ways of measuring the climate system energy uptake.
1) from radiative forcing theory (the greenhouse efect).
2) from measurement of radiative forcing.
3) from measuring the difference between insolation and OLR.
4) From measuring the increase in bulk temperature of the oceans.
5) From measuring thermal expansion of the oceans.

Five independant methods allowing you to calculate the rate of energy accumulation by the climate system. They converge on the same value for the rate of energy accumulation - 3*10^22 Joules/year. A good match between theory and observation.

The problem with going by surface temperatures alone is the noise level; the random variation due to weather, seasonal variation, ENSO, a solar cycle and an underlying warming trend. Since 1970 the confidence limits for the trend have been +/- 0.1CC, enclosing the latter 1990s acceleration, the noughties slowdown and the recent acceleration.

There are also trends in energy content, sea level rise, ice loss and other variables. Better to look at the whole pattern.

Mike Jackson

DONT PANIC!

But nor should you stick your head in the sand and refuse to admit that there is a problem.

"CO2 absorbs at one frequency and emits at another frequency"

Dung, a molecule that absorbs at one frequency can also emit at the same frequency, and vice versa. The relative amounts will be determined by factors such as local temperature, intensity of irradiation etc.

Dung

Could you be more specific?

Perhaps you could describe what your experiment would look like.

All the stages in the causation chain of the greenhouse effect can be demonstrated separately in the laboratory, but it would be difficult to demonstrate the whole process on one bench.

Now Dung has to propose his own experiment? The question is what evidence have you got. Where is the falsification criteria, where are the provable predictions?

When I ask, I don't expect to be fobbed off with 'look what happens when IR hits CO2 molecules.". Show me. If you want my money, and you want to take away my future, show me. And don't fiddle the figures, don't rely on models all the way down, and don't make the political moves before the science is really a little further along.

Rhoda,

It's a fair point, and there's not really much I can say to refute it. So I'll put an analogy, if you will.

Man goes to the doctor, let's call him Dung, to be amusing.

Dung: Doctor, I seem to have put on a lot of weight.
Doctor: How much weight have you put on?
Dung: oh, about 20 pounds over the last 5 years.
Doctor: Well, you need to watch your diet.
Dung: (outraged!) Are you saying it's caused by over-eating?
Doctor: Well, that is usually the cause.
Dung: I won't believe it until you prove it to me!
Doctor: OK, here's a medical book explaining the metabolic process
Dung: I'm not going to read that, pointing at what someone else wrote isn't proof!
Doctor: But it would take a long time to explain it to you.
Dung: If you can't explain it, then you have no business doctoring.
Doctor: Well, in brief, eating more calories than you burn results in fat being deposited in your body
Dung: I won't believe it until you prove it!
Doctor: Well, food contains energy, we burn some of it in everyday activity, the rest is metabolised
Dung: Show me an experiment, or it's just a theory!
Doctor: There are many experiments using simple and complex sugars in a test tube
Dung: Test tube pah! That's not a real body
Doctor: Well, there have been statistical studies done.
Dung: Statistics lies and phooey! I want an experiment with a real person.
Doctor: Well, how would you do such an experiment?
Dung: I don't care, that's your problem.
Doctor: Well, we could measure your food intake and exercise level exactly over the five years
Dung: And what were the results?
Doctor: What do you mean, we didn't actually do it!
Dung: Well, until you do I won't believe it!
Doctor: You don't need to believe it, people have devoted their lives to studying this
Dung: Well, I don't trust them
Doctor: So despite all the science being understood, you still won't believe it?
Dung: Not until you can show me my food intake and exercise level and my weight on a graph.
Doctor: Well, if you insist, I suppose you could do that.
Dung: No, I want YOU to do it.
Doctor: I don't need to do it, I'm not the one doubting basic science
Dung: You need to do it to convince me, or else I won't believe you
Doctor: You know what, Mr Dung, I'm past caring if you believe it or not. Good day.
Dung: Good day! (Exits, clutching his chest suddenly, slumping to the floor...)

Dung,
Not to practice medicine, but depending on what is behind your need for blood thinners, you might find it interesting that my hematologist took me off the rat poison and put me on 2 mgs of folic acid per day over 3 years ago and with excellent results.

Rhoda, dung

I have been giving you numbers and reference for years.

You rejected all the evidence I gave you.

Why should I waste any more time bouncing information off your cognitive dissonance?

EM, if the energy is indeed going into the oceans as you have often claimed, I can accept that for the sake of argument. Now explain to me how entropy will be reversed to get 1/100th of a degree out again to give a heat rise in the atmosphere two/three orders greater. If we, mankind, could emulate that process we'd get free energy forever.

Martin A,
Good questions.
Therefor the climate concerned will ignore them.

Mike Jackson

Go to the HITRAN database. . Look for the data on CO2. It is open access but you'll need to register.

Rhoda, Martin A

Let's go around the evidence one more time.

1)" Warming has been increased significantly (since 1960, say) by emissions caused by human use of fossil fuels."

Surface temperature measurements (land stations, ships and buoys) show an increase in global mean temperature anomaly.GISS shows an increase from.0.03 in 1960 to 0.75 in 2014, an increase of 0.72C, or 0.13C/decade.

Using the 5-year averages to reduce the effect of short term variation.we go from 0.03C in 1960 to 0.67C in 2012. This is an increase of 0.64C in 52 years, 0.12C/decade.

IIRC the global mean is based on ~3000 measurements twice a day. For the annual mean n=3000*2*365=2,190,000. Standard deviation is 0.045C and 95% confidence limits are +/- 0.09C.

The null hypothesis is that any change between the 1960 and the present is due to random variation.If the difference between them is 4 standard deviations the probability that the null hypothesis is correct is 5%. This would be a difference of 4*0.045=0.18C.

The actual difference is 0.64C, which is 14.2 standard deviations. It is very unlikely that the observed temperature is random. The null hypothesis is falsified so we look for a cause.

The main candidates for a rapid warming are an increase in solar insolation, a decrease in albedo, ENSO and increased CO2. Insolation has not changed, albedo has increased and ENSO is too short. The only one which has increased over 52 years is CO2,

In 1960 CO2 was 315ppm, rising to 395ppm in 2012. Radiative forcing theory would predict a warming due directly to CO2 of 5.35*ln(395/315) /3.7. = 0.33C ignoring feedbacks.The actual rise implies a short term climate sensitivity of 0.64/0.33= 1.94.

There are no natural sources producing CO2 at the observed rate of increase. Our fossil fuel consumption rate does produce enough CO2 to explain the increase

My conclusion. Temperatures have increased significantly since 1960. Of the possible causes only anthropogenic CO2 has changed in a way which explains the change in temperature.

2) "Any such warming will continue into the future and will have adverse consequences."

Firstly, we continue to produced CO2. Without a big change in our behaviour or in the laws of physics there will be a corresponding and continuing increase in temperature.

Temperature increase brings changes in the behaviour of the climate system.

Sea level rise is currently 3.3 mm/year and accelerating. For immediate effects, research the increasing nuisance flooding in Miami Beach and Charleston. Flooding previously occurring during storm surges is now occurring during the highest normal tides. Those studying Greenland and Antarctica expect them to release meltwater at increasing rates so flooding is expected to get worse.

The amount of water vapuor the atmosphere can carry in the atmosphere increases by 7.5%/C of warming. In wet climates this will produce a corresponding increase in precipitation. This is showing not as a general increase, but as extreme events causing inland flooding.

High sea temperatures drive increased frequency of tropical cyclones. Note that the current pre-ENSO year has produced a record number of category 4and 5 typhoons and hurricanes in the Pacific.

Extreme temperature events are increasing. A fit human can survive only below a wet bulb temperature of 35C. The sick and elderly are less tolerant. Check heat related deaths, particularly in India, Pakistan and the Middle East.

If you think of damage in financial terms, look at reports on climate related damage from such companies as Munich Re. Their costs are increasing faster than development can explain.

Actually, the early 1960's was the start of the noticeably divergence between proxy-derived temperatures and actual data.
Claiming that temps have risen significantly since 1960 only requires ignoring the evidence that temps have not risen significantly (they have not) and ignoring the re-processing and re-re-processing of the record to make sure it fits the alarmist claim.
The claim about slr at 3.3 mms and rising is similarly dubious.
As to: "Insolation has not changed, albedo has increased and ENSO is too short." Well, not one of those assertions is accepted outside of the consensus pushers.

What is skipped over, that nothing catastrophic is changing in the manifestation of climate, is most telling about the lack of substance behind the defense EM offers.

EM, you wanna make up your mind whether the energy went into the oceans or not. You seem to take a different position on this depending on circumstances. It is quite important that we know what is going on before we do the attribution step. I don't think we do.

I note your statement:

"The null hypothesis is that any change between the 1960 and the present is due to random variation"

Who says? Who even on the warmist side says 'natural variations' are random? All we on the sceptic side would claim is that not much of that change is anthropogenic. We do not believe natural variations are random. Many sceptics identify cycles of various periods associated with various phenomena. I note that people can see cycles where they exist and where they really don't.

Hunter

Do you have numbers to back up your opinions? I would like to see them.

An early stage cancer does little damage, but you would not ignore it until metastasis starts killing you. Similarly the climate change to date is much less than will happen in the future, but only a fool would wait for the disaster to happen before doing anything about it.

Rhoda, Martin A, Dung

About 94% of the incoming energy ends up warming the oceans. The rest is warming the land and the atmosphere or melting ice.
This is to be expected since most of the heat capacity in the system is in the oceans. Be glad of it. Without the oceans, land and air temperatures would be rising much faster.

I think you see inconsistencies in my position because your mental model of the climate system is too simple. You might like to study an energy flow diagram to remind you how complex the energy budget is, and how much energy moves between different parts of the system.

Martin A asked "Warming has been increased significantly (since 1960, say) by emissions caused by human use of fossil fuels."

The first step is to calculate whether there was a statistically significant change in temperature over that period.

You start by setting up two hypotheses.

The null hypothesis is that there is no cause for the difference, ie that random variation is sufficient.

The alternative hypothesis is that some mechanism has caused the difference.

I used a simple statistical test to measure how probable the null hypothesis was. The answer was that it was unlikely. The corollary was that the alternative hypothesis was clikely and that something was causing the change.

Note that the null hypothesis says nothing about the nature of the random variation, juat assuming that it is not generating any trend.

A forcing causing a trend may be natural or anthropogenic. Natural variation is independent of humanity. Such variations include orbital changes, vulcanism and changes in solar insolation. The main anthropogenic effects are the increase in CO2 and air pollution. Changes in any of these, of sufficient magnitude and sufficient duration might. produce temperature changes as observed.

The second stage is to identify which natural or artificial forcings might produce the observed temperature change. My point is that all the natural variations are measurable, and have remained mostly constant . None are putting enough energy into the system to explain the observed temperature increase.

Having eliminated the natural variations we are left with CO2, The observed warming matches the warming expected from the change in CO2 over the period.

Humans are pattern seeking animals, who tend to see cycles even where there are none. The proper way to identify cycles is by statistical analysis. Do you have numbers?

Dung

"Neither you nor I can reliably identify ALL the factors which affect our climate/temperature, in which case you can not just say well it was not A or B therefore it must be C. For all we humans know it could be Z."

Actually we can identify all the main factors.

If you have a dry joint in a circuit the resistance is higher than expected. If the resistance is as expected there is probably not a dry joint.

If someone is stealing from your bank the balance will be lower than your transactions can explain. If you account balances there is probably no theft.

Similarly a large unknown source of temperature variation would show up as an unexplained imbalance in the energy budget. If the energy budget balances, as it does, there is probably no large unknown source.

There may indeed be a factor Z, but iif it exists it only has a small effect on the system.

Mike Jackson

I have no idea of the exact values, not having read the original classified papers. Nor am I keen to spend hours digging through HITRAN.

From the data I do have, I would estimate that doubling the CO2 content as described would increase the redirection through A by 1%.

"Actually, the early 1960's was the start of the noticeably divergence between proxy-derived temperatures and actual data."
---------------------------------------------
Hunter

Do you have numbers to back up your opinions? I would like to see them.
Nov 2, 2015 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, that is where Michael Mann chose to start chopping off the data from his tree rings when carving his hockey stick. Steve McIntyre has been writing about these offences for years at Climate Audit. You need to get out of your bubble more often.