Discussion > Modulation of Ice Ages via Precession and Dust-Albedo Feedbacks
Ralph,
Fascinating, blog science at it's best.
...and Then There's Physics
This is a typical oxymoron from the fantasy science community. A model cannot be physical. It is by definition a flight of fancy, subject to the same rules of GIGO as any other computer program. Physical data comes from physical experimentation, which you gave not shown here.
I meant, of course, a physics-based rather than statistical model. As for data - read the ****ing paper.
Phil Clarke
I realise that one should be careful about surface and TOA fluxes, but I'll make a point about this.
I would imagine something like 1 wm2 would be a better value for Co2.
We've warmed by about 1K, which implies that the outgoing surface radiative flux has increased by about 5.5W/m^2. We would also expect an increase in non-radiative fluxes (evaporation, convection) of about 1/4 of this - so about 1.4W/m^2. And yet, we still have a positive planetary energy imbalance (we continue to accrue energy). How is this possible if the radiative effect of increased CO2 is as low as 1W/m^2 per doubling?
...and Then There's Physics
>>As for the data, read the paper.
I did. And it did not mention 'observed' or 'measured' once, while it mentioned 'calculated' quite a lot. And the BBM and NBM data went to 1,000 ppm CO2. Quite obviously this supposed data is based upon lab experimentation rather than real word experimentation. Where are the real world measurements of an increase in downwelling LW, over the last 40 years?
.
>>implies an outgoing surface radiative flux increase of 5.5 wm2.
Even if you believe this figure, was this due to Co2 or albedo? If you wear Co2 blinkers, you will only see Co2 as a cause. Take the blinkers off for a while, and you might see a great deal of Chinese industrial emissions falling upon the northern ice sheets, for one. It has already been demonstrated that Alpine glacial retreat over the 20th century was proportional to industrial soot on those glaciers.
In addition, please also factor in:
The UHI effect on the temperature record, which has not been adequately allowed for.
The systematic downward adjustments of past temperatures, which makes the warming appear larger.
The peak of the PDO and AMO oceanic cycles, which will disproportionally effect the NH high lat temperature record (which is where much of the warming has been recorded).
I think you can safely divide your 1oc by 2, making a much smaller warming trend. So even if you do believe the Co2 story, its warming potential can be halved. And if you factor in albedo, it can be halved again. Thus the true potential of CO2 is probably 1 wm2 for a doubling of Co2 (at these modern higher concentrations, where Co2 is approaching saturation).
Ralph
z
ralph ellis
Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850. This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.
Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Phil Clarke
Ralph,
The 5.5W/m^2 comes from a very basic calculation. The emissivity of the surface is about 1, and the blackbody function is sigmaT^4. So, if the average surface temperature is 288K, and it increases to 289K, the radiative flux from the surface increases by sigma(289^4-288^4) = 5.44W/m^2. If you believe we've only warmed by 0.5K, then it would be 2.7W/m^2, but that's still hard to reconcile with a radiative effect from a doubling of CO2 of only 1W/m^2.
...and Then There's Physics
Paleo, I love it. A crystal ball.
=====
kim
Phil Clarke - do you really believe what you are saying?
You present a paper that has one or two years of observations. H2O downwelling radiation changes by 80 wm2 between the two years and by 150 wm2 over the seasons. While Co2 only has one year of observation, and this changes by 300% (20 wm2) between winter and summer. And the effect of H2O is aroud ten times that of CO2, depending on the season.
And from this they confidently calculate not only the precise radiative forcing of Co2, but are also able to make a precise comparison with preindustrial Co2 concentrations, and provide a forcing figure that 'is in agreement with IPCC calculations'. (ie: give us another grant....).
Do you really believe any of this? Realy?
Ralph
,
ralph ellis
1. The observations confirm that there is a radiative forcing from the various Greenhouse gases, and that its amplitude is as predicted by the models.
2. We know how abundances of the greenhouse gases has evolved since pre-industrial times.
Ergo, we know, as in, we have a good estimate of, how forcings have evolved. Not that hard.
The albedo/dust hypothesis as an explanation of glacial/deglaciacial cycles is plausible, but unproven, and not something that interests me greatly. Anybody who understands the difference between a forcing and a feedback will appreciate that its relevance to modern AGW is nix.
Phil Clarke
Attribution, She's a bitch;
Don't know how just scratch that itch.
Puff the Magic Climate
Lived by the CO2;
Nature turned and bit him, someplace rich.
==================
kim
Just had a look at the paper mentioned above: https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Apart from using simulated data to calibrate the measuring sensor, in table 3a and 3b they state clearly that the radiation from H20 is 105.4 w/m^2 compared to 34.7 w/m^2 for CO2 in the winter.
In the summer the figures are H2O 256 w/m^2 and 10.5 w/m^2 for CO2.
The authors do comment that "The contribution of water vapour to the increase in greenhouse radiation has not been included since it is a part of the natural climate feedback. There is some argument to suggest that tropospheric water vapour has already increased by several percent; hence, the corresponding flux contribution may need to be included, but this effect is beyond the scope of current models. "
So 10 years ago the massive affect that H2O compared to CO2 was documented but ignored.
Stating that this paper has 'measured' the effect of atmospheric CO2 is not correct since multiple instances of the 'measurements' being dependent upon modelled data are present.
Steve Richards
CO2 doesn't condense but it precipitates to the bottom of the ocean as coccolithophore skeletons, and it is doing so at an accelerating rate.
==========
kim
"The surface of the Earth is - on average - 33K warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere..."
Not so: if the Earth had no atmosphere then its surface would be 33 degrees cooler, on average, than what we measure at the bottom of the atmosphere. This heating of the atmosphere is caused by either;
a ) gravitational effect on energy density in a column of atmosphere
or
b) radiation from the sun, having been absorbed, producing and then releasing more energy merely by coming into contact with radiative molecules in the atmosphere as it departs to space.
or
c) causes the effective height of radiation to space to rise to a cooler level thereby introducing a time lag in energy transit through the system.
or
d) causes the effective height of radiation to space to rise, carrying its average temperature with it and raising the average bottom of atmosphere temperature to increase in line with a).
Each scenario will produce a different BOA temperature response from a doubling of aCO2. More importantly, only one can be correct.
@ Ralf Ellis. Your thinking and your paper are most welcome in a sea of dogma and failed predictions from it. Good luck - you'll need it.
Full English Brexit
This has become buried. I think new readers would benefit from seeing this discussion revived.
Iantanyrallt
This is most interesting. Does Ralph still contribute here?
John
John Paragon
>>This is most interesting. Does Ralph still contribute here?
Yes, still here. Notifications still come through.
The paper was published by Science Direct in 2016, and has had 29,000 downloads.
Although many readers have been vaguely critical, none have thus far presented any information or reasoning to undermine my hypothesis.
And still nobody has shown any data to demonstrate that Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR) is increasing. DLR is the very essence of the greenhouse effect, so if DLR has remained static then there has been NO greenhouse warming over the last few decades.
Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
Ralph
.
Ralph Ellis
And, finally, human witnesses were tracked down in southern deserts. During this past year archaeologists have brought back new evidence that the Sahara desert was green and fertile and thriving with civilization when glaciers froze life in America and Europe. Ewing and Donn had deduced that an open Arctic Ocean would have caused rain in today’s deserts. Now, from the caves of the Sahara, came ancient man’s vivid drawings of the animals that he hunted on the once grassy desert
clipe
Most interesting – I missed this fun, first time round; I must have been away, working.
Although many readers have been vaguely critical, none have thus far presented any information or reasoning to undermine my hypothesis.I have noticed that many will present other’s opinions, hypotheses, calculations and estimations as incontrovertible fact (some even seem to consider that, though each and every one of the many, many models is wrong, the average of them must be right…), while failing to present any actual confirmatory data. It is also sad how quickly so many resort to ad hominems, if not on the author, then on anyone that they might be associated with, thus also applying guilt by association.
Please keep contributing, Mr Ellis, it is the best way to keep this oasis of wisdom growing.
Radical Rodent
Ravishing Rabbit, "...many will present other’s opinions, hypotheses, calculations and estimations as incontrovertible fact". But this how science operates. Interpretations that go through peer review and get published are initially considered to be correct. And they remain scientifically true until refuted by the subsequent publication of a peer reviewed paper, with new evidence or interpretation.
AK
Minty: well… yeah… but that is not what I said. Read it again: “…many will present other’s opinions, hypotheses, calculations and estimations as incontrovertible fact” An opinion, hypothesis, calculation or estimation might be true, but is not necessarily an incontrovertible fact. For these suppositions to become verifiably true, data (i.e. facts) are required.
Radical Rodent
RR. Read what I wrote. It is a convention that material appropriately published is considered to be true unless it is shown to be erroneous by subsequent publications. Since in the interim its contents are considered to be true, then by definition they consist of incontrovertible facts. You and I might believe otherwise, but the only way this can be demonstrated is by publication.
Occasionally I would be asked by a student why all the fuss in Climategate over getting rid of a journal editor and I would have to patiently explain that there was a mafia amongst climate scientists to prevent publication of sceptical material, and a very efficient way of doing this was to control journal content by controlling the journal editors. Without publication of contrary material, the content of climate science papers went largely unchallenged in the published literature. But you should know all this.
AK
Minty: perhaps my understanding is slipping; maybe I just do not like to follow convention – I would argue that material appropriately published is considered valid, until it can be independently confirmed, or unless it is shown to be erroneous by subsequent publications; never forget Diederik Stapel. Accepting something as valid does not make it true; accepting something as true does not make it an incontrovertible fact. Surely, an incontrovertible fact is something that anyone can verify; if not, though it might be a fact, it is not incontrovertible.
Radical Rodent
We have moved on four years since that discussion, but....
Numbers of strong tornadoes are still reducing.
https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/tornadoes-1954-2018.jpg?ssl=1
The number of hurricanes has remained steady.
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
The number of cyclones has remained steady.
http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
NH winter snow extent is still increasing.
https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/utgers-university-climate-lab-global-snow-lab-nh-winter.png?w=1180
Antarctic sea ice increased for 40 years until 20q6, when it fell off a cliff.
https://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm#Sea%20ice%20extension%20in%20a%20longer%20time%20perspective
If scientists and their media poodles have to give us cherry-picked data, they are no longer involved in science, they are selling political propaganda. Clearly, their scare stories are not actually happening. The climate is more complex than they assume.
Ralph
ralph ellis
Regards Antarctic sea ice, that grew for nearly 40 years, the following are a good demonstration of the disinformation we are being spun. They say...
Quote: “The increase (in sea ice) definitely does not refute global warming and may even be a feature of it,”
https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/extraordinary-storms-caused-massive-antarctic-sea-ice-loss-in-2016
Yeah, sure, the complete opposite of this was predicted, but nevertheless this INCREASE in ice is actually in line with - errr - our predictions.
.
Quote: "While we expect a slow decline ... from global warming, we don't expect such a rapid decline in a single year to happen very often."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831092650.htm
Yes, they expected a slow decline in sea ice due to global warming, so why did the sea ice INCREASE for nearly 40 years?
Nevertheless, you have to admit that the Science is Settled...
Ralph
ralph ellis
Quote:
Again, this is wrong, and fairly fundamental. If you read the paper I linked you will find not a single reference to Paleoclimate, the radiative forcing numbers used by the IPCC are derived from physical models.
____________________________
This is a typical oxymoron from the fantasy science community. A model cannot be physical. It is by definition a flight of fancy, subject to the same rules of GIGO as any other computer program. Physical data comes from physical experimentation, which you gave not shown here. And besides, Hansen came up with 3.5 wm2 without water vapour. And with water vapour doubling the effects of WMGHGs, that should be 7 wm2. So which model do we use, your 2.25 wm2, or Hansen's 7 wm2??
Show me a paper measuring the downwelling LW radiation from the atmosphere for each of the main GHGs, from various locations around the world, and I might be more impressed. And how that downwelling radiation has increased over the decades.
The other eason for dismissing all these models, is that they are quite obviously all wrong. There are seventy models out there, and each and every one of them predicted more warming than has been observed. And if the data disagrees with the theory and model, then the theory and model are wrong. Yes, we know the fantasist community likes to say the data is wrong, but no - it is the theory and the model that is wrong. Besides, my dust-albedo theory demonstrates that the strongest feedback agent is actually albedo, which again reduces the role that CO2 plays in the real world climate.
And yes, Phys, I do understand the physics of the greenhouse effect. But the devil lies in the detail (the amount of warming). There is a huge range of greehouse warming guesstimates out there, and each and every one of them has been wrong. So it is quite obvious that in real-world conditions the greenhouse warming effect of Co2 is not as great as has been assumed. I would imagine something like 1 wm2 would be a better value for Co2.
In the world of traditional science, scientists would be busy designing real-world experiments to test why their theory and models were all wrong. But in the world of fantasy climate science, they simply make more and more unsubstantiated alarmist predictions, none of which ever come true. The Arctic ice sheet is still there, the Antarctic ice sheet is still growing, tropical storm numbers are still reducing, tornado numbers are still reducing, NH snowfall is still increasing, and cities are still not under water. Away from the fantasy-land that is modern climate science, this is what is happening in the real world.
Ralph