Discussion > Are Geological Paleo-Climate Records Relevant to The Climate Debate?
Erm… I don’t think that is what Mr Corbett was on about – even I can understand that putting more energy into a system heats it, hence the overall rise in temperatures since the Little Ice Age. What Mr Corbett was talking about with EM was that observation of a phenomenon does not necessarily identify the cause of the phenomenon, unless you understand all the elements within the system of that phenomenon, hence his first sentence: “Unless you have adequately characterised a system you cannot attribute causes of changes in it.”
Radical Rodent
RR,
Then maybe you can point out where EM make any kind of attribution statement? We put more energy in, ice melts and things get hotter. That's consistent with what we'd expect from AGW. It doesn't mean that we can definitively attribute these changes to AGW, but the lack of formal attribution is - IMO - a weak argument against it.
...and Then There's Physics
It's consistent with AGW because this hypothesis assumes that significant change occurs due to CO2.
A lack of formal attribution is a weak argument against it? So do you mean that we should make a claim as it's the best we've got and stick with this until proven otherwise?
If so that's a reversal of the scientific method. The default is we don't have enough data and as such should be cautious is linking effects to certain hypothetical causes.
Micky H Corbett
Yeah. Wot 'e sed....
Radical Rodent
So do you mean that we should make a claim as it's the best we've got and stick with this until proven otherwise?
No, but I think that if you have an alternative, that you should be able to make predictions/projections. Simply saying that it could be something else, doesn't really tell us what that other thing could be, how that other process operates, and why our current hypothesis is wrong (i.e., why does increasing GHGs not produce a radiative forcing as we think it does, and why do the feedbacks not operate as we think they do).
...and Then There's Physics
Ken
You're arguing from an assumptive frame. Why do GHGs not produce a radiative forcing as we think it does?
That's probably because the hypothesis isn't right and secondly because the data is not accurate or substantial to give you an answer.
The reason a hypothesis is wrong can be in its concept. You don't need data to confirm this. It's true by inspection.
The key question to ask is why do you think a process works the way it does and do you have enough data to show this?
Otherwise my hypothesis, your hypothesis, and the trivial hypothesis are all equally valid. Where do you think the Least Energy state is?
Micky H Corbett
Why do GHGs not produce a radiative forcing as we think it does?That's probably because the hypothesis isn't right
On what basis do you make this assertion that GHGs do not produce a radiative foring as we think it does?
...and Then There's Physics
The idea of radiative forcing for CO2 is that a change in the radiation at TOA produces a change in surface temperature until the surface temperature rises so that the total emission of the Earth balances the time integrated Sun's input.
That's also why people talk of imbalance.
So you ask why I make an assertion that GHGs do not produce radiative forcing as we think it does? That's simple. Radiative forcing itself is an assertion. All we have is the change in radiation in CO2 bands which is most prominent at TOA. Not at the surface since that effect is saturated. So we have one part of the puzzle. What we don't have is what happens next. Does this change in radiation produce a change in temperature locally? It probably does but I don't know what then happens.
Does this temperature change drive surface temperatures which is what radiative forcing is supposed to do? To do that the lapse rate and water column dynamics must remain constant so the whole atmosphere heats up from surface to TOA. That's an assertion. That hasn't been shown to happen because this would produce a tropical hotspot according to theory. In fact changes in the IR emission of water are very hard to measure with sufficient accuracy. It's a goal of satellite missions to improve this. So the radiation imbalance could be accommodated by water vapour changes and clouds.
There is data out there that relative humidity in the upper atmosphere has reduced over the last 20 years so maybe that's something. There is a hypothesis that predicts that I believe.
So we have a change in radiation but to make it produce temperature change it needs a rigid lapse rate. Other ideas say water vapour process can compensate. One assertion versus another with no one the wiser.
Or I can just say something is going on that we don't understand. Much like the Sun's Corona.
Micky H Corbett
Alan Kendall, Paul Dennis
I went away from the debate for a day to calm down.
I have reread the last few pages and sincerely apologise to you both for my bad attack of foot in mouth disease.regarding UAE.
Entropic man
EM. I accept your gracious apology.
It's UEA by the way, not UAE.
Alan Kendall
UAE are not so forgiving about libel. Could cost an arm or a leg, or a hand.
golf charlie
Mickey H Corbett
The radiative imbalance due to the observed change in CO2.can be projected from the theory of the CO2 greenhdouse effect. The rate of energy uptake can be calculated.
On a laboratory scale observation is consistent with this theory.
The observed imbalance between inward and outward radiation observed by satellite measurements can also be used to calculate the rate of energy uptake.
The measured increases in energy conent due to latent heat from ice melt,ocean heat content increase and land warming can also be added together to measure the rate of energy uptake.
The three lines of evidence agree within their respective margins of uncertainty that the rate of uptake is about 3*10^22Joules/year. This convergence of different lines of evidence is a major reason why the CO2 hypothesis is the current paradigm.
Since it is difficult to do controlled experiments on a planetary scale, it is difficult to prove a causal link to laboratory standards.
Any alternative hypothesis to CO2 would have the same problem of proof, but if you want non-sceptics to take your water vapour hypothesis seriously you will need to show that it can quantitatively explain the observed energy imbalance and energy content changes at least as well as the CO2 hypothesis.
You would need to demonstrate, at least mathematically, that your hypothesis fits reality by producing
a) valid theoretical physics for your causation.
b) evidence that this effect can be produced under laboratory conditions.
C) that it produces the observed TOA imbalance.
d) that it produces the observed increase in climate system energy content.
Entropic man
Radical Rodent
Both the increasingly severe heat waves, the ice melt and SST cooling around Greenland and the increase in storm frequency in the UK were all projected in advance.
This is always a good test for new science, that it correctly projects changes in the system.
Entropic man
EM,
thank you. I also graciously accept and also apologise for some intemperate responses. I hope we can all move on from here. There have been some very 'robust' exchanges on the various discussion threads lately. None of it is at all illuminating unless one is interested in human behaviour. On the whole I've enjoyed the exchanges here and welcome the debate especially with Ken (aTTP) and yourself who come at the issues with a different perspective. In reality I doubt that we are very far apart on most, if not all, the science. Not-with-standing testing ideas in the crucible of debate is invariably positive if not always a comfortable experience.
Paul Dennis
EM
The nature of clouds and water vapour process in the atmosphere are not fully known. And water vapour is the predominant greenhouse gas. So you can choose to ignore it and assume it enhances the TOA effect of CO2 or you realise that to achieve AGW you need to make a large assumption about water vapour processes.
I don't need to show you that water vapour can do this that and the other as it hasn't been characterised in detail as of yet. We are getting better. The full details are largely unknown. What I can say is that AGW requires water vapour to behave a certain way which it cannot demonstrate.
Hence AGW is not a complete hypothesis. I only need to point out the holes. If you weren't so wedded to the idea of CO2 causing heating you'd see that.
In addition you talk about convergence of evidence but it's a circular argument. Like I said before if you do not know how processes in a system interact then you may be attributing factors incorrectly. This is a pure logic argument. It doesn't require numbers. The Sun's corona is a brilliant example of this. No one knows why it's a million Kelvin.
Do you see what I'm getting at? The basic premise of AGW is based on assumptions about water vapour. And not very good ones.
Micky H Corbett
EM, inventing new statistics that were never previously measured, demonstrates the immaturity of climate science, and most of it's cheerleaders.
golf charlie
… increasingly severe heat waves…Eh?
That they are being increasingly reported (when they do occur – the closest we have had to one in the UK was that during March, 2012. I am sure many would love a repeat of 1976 – though that would no doubt be presented as a harbinger of doom, nowadays) does NOT mean that they are becoming increasingly severe.
Radical Rodent
On the whole I've enjoyed the exchanges here and welcome the debate especially with Ken (aTTP) and yourself who come at the issues with a different perspective.
Thanks. It has been interesting and enjoyable. I apologise if my most recent response to you was somewhatr snarky.
...and Then There's Physics
aTTP,
if it was I missed it but thank you! There's too much going on in the lab right now to spend a lot of time here, or anywhere else for that matter! So apologies to you and others if I drift away at times. It's simply because there are more pressing issues and things to do at times.
Paul Dennis
Radical Rodent, 1976 was a hot one, but it occurred before satellites, home video and YouTube, so doesn't count in climate science. I am not sure they had invented climate science either.
The BBC's Gardeners World programme from 15-20 years ago was preaching the message of hotter and drier summers, and boosted the sales of water butts and drought resistant plants, but always avoided comparing the forecast summers to the one we had in 1976. Obviously forecasts involving memories of what we had already had, would not have sounded as though it was something new.
golf charlie
Micky H Corbett
The conventional view is that water vapour and clouds are feedbacks, responding to temperature rather than driving it.
If you want to invoke water vapour as a driver of temperature change, you need to show a physical mechanism and numbers that project the observed changes. There is handwaving and there is science. The difference is that science uses numbers.
You need to show how water vapour and cloud cover can change progressively by a non-temperature mechanism and then cause a temperature change without being affected by it. This needs to be consistent with the observed radiation balance and energy content changes.
Believing is not enough, nor is handwaving. Specifics, please.
Entropic man
Golf Charlie
The evidence you requested
Entropic man
EM, thanks for the link, but it is NASA, and quotes Jim Hansen.
Jim Hensen's creations were more reliable, and funnier too. If Miss Piggy had done a Hockey Stick routine, it might have won awards for comedy.
golf charlie
…the increase in storm frequency in the UK…Double eh?
The recent "innovation" of naming storms is not necessarily because there has been an increase in storms or that they are more severe, but it is a handy tool to use to try and convince the more gullible that this is actually what is happening. Your recent assertion on another thread that there has been an increase in named storms, which means that they are more frequent and more severe, does tell us rather more about you than you should be comfortable with.
And then you go and try to tell the nice Mr Corbett that he knows nothing about science. Sheesh – do you really wonder quite why you are treated as you are on this site? The evidence is blatantly obvious to most.
Radical Rodent
Micky,
I think you're missing some nuance here :-) Firstly, this is more an observational science, than an experimental science. Secondly, the first step might be more to see if what is observed matches what one would expect. What do we expect of we add more energy to a system that contains ice? Some of the ice will start melting. Maybe we'll also see some are certainly consistent with what would be expected and it would be remarkable - were we to continue adding energy - if we didn't see an increase in the intensity and frequency of heatwaves and didn't see increased ice melt.