Discussion > Are Geological Paleo-Climate Records Relevant to The Climate Debate?
I asked my question in good faith and you singularly failed to address it. When I expressed frustration over this, you snap back.
And I answered in good faith. Maybe try reading my response again. Not only do I think I answered your question, so did Phil Clarke.
I consider it insulting for you to imply I did not know that climate scientists have the peculiar view that change equals anomaly.
Then maybe you shouldn't say things that make it appear that you didn't know this. I wasn't trying to insult you, however it may have appeared. I will certainly be tempted to do so in future, though.
You don't even use the english language correctly (they are not synonyms).
I can't remember using the word "synonyms". Maybe I did, I can't remember. Your pointing it out in this way makes me feel like I'm back in High School.
FWIW, my apologies if I said anything that offended you. It won't happen again.
...and Then There's Physics
aTTW The questioner usually determines if the answer is adequate (or has even been answered at all).
I wrote that the words "change" and "anomaly" are not synonyms. You wrote that I would have learned that they were (ie meant the same thing) if I had talked with my former CRU colleagues. If you use the word "anomaly" to mean "change" you misuse it.
Alan Kendall
Alan,
aTTW The questioner usually determines if the answer is adequate
Really? I would never have thought that. I guess we occupy very different social environments. Personally, I normally appreciate it when people try to at least respond in some kind of way. In my view it's about dialogue and the exchange of views. I hadn't appreciated that I was unworthy of your attention and incapable of responding in a manner that was up to your clearly exacting standards. I shall refrain from attempting to do so in future as I'm obviously not in your intellectual league or of a social standing that allows me to engage with you on any kind of equal footing. Please accept my apologies for not realising the calibre of person with whom I was dealing (was that use of English acceptable?). Again, my apologies if I said anything that may have offended you in some way.
...and Then There's Physics
Amazing. Did you ever see somebody with a chip on his shoulder like that?
Big Oil
Yes, Ken has definitely thrown a wobbler.
Never a good idea to touch a keyboard after downing a few, specially when in a state of seething anger.
Martin A
Radical Rodent
I wonder… what evidence is there that a planetary energy imbalance is not the norm?
Apr 14, 2016 at 8:53 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent
Your post got me thinking about imbalance. You are right that the imbalance is not constant. Even on short timescales there is a continual jitter.
Every cloud, every weather system, every snowfall and every sunspot will change the radiation balance slightly. If you take a number of measurements over a period you can build up a frequency distribution and observe a roughly normal distribution around a mean.
The decadal mean is around 0.7W/M^2 at present. 2015 saw a sea level rise of 15mm instead of the average 3.3mm. This indicates an imbalance closer to 3W/M^2 for 2015.
The Holocene Optimum showed a stable period from about 8000 to 5000 years ago, with temperatures around latter 20th century averages( a debater for another day). During this time the mean imbalance would have been close to zero.
Conveniently, a 1W/M^2 imbalance produces a rate of temperature change close to 1C/century. We can quickly estimate imbalance means during past periods of change. Alan Kendall or Paul Dennis might like to check my figures.
Over the 5000 years before 1850 there was a 1C cooling. That is 0.02C/ century and a cooling imbalance of 0.02W/^2
The early Holocene warmed 5C in 10,000 years. That is 0.05C/century and a warming imbalance of 0.05W/M^2.
Recent glacial periods have cooled 5C over 90,000 years. That is a cooling rate of 0.0005C/century and a cooling imbalance of 0.0005W/M^2.
You are correct that imbalance is normal, but normal values are below 0.05W/M^2.
Modern imbalance values are much higher.
Entropic man
Martin A, the public can form their own opinion of climate science credibility. It is only climate scientists who need the likes of aTTP, to make up their own minds for them.
golf charlie
Well done, EM! You have managed to highlight (quite literally) almost every flaw in your arguments in one go! Aside for your assertion of sea-levels risings 15mm in one year (source please!), you have given us “facts” of imbalances averaged over thousands of years, ignoring the wealth of information that Messrs K&D have given us quite recently, then compared it with what has been measured over a few decades. What was the imbalance between, say, 10,000BC and 9,950BC? What would be the average imbalance over the past, say, 1,000 years? 2,000 years?
By the way, there is no need to shout.
Radical Rodent
Alan and Martin A, you will have noted that Ken throws a wobbly whenever he is questioned deeply and feels unable to give an answer likely to be favourable to sceptics, even when it is clearly necessary.
He has form for this.
Typically questioning the qualifications or understanding of others.
Steve Richards
Entropic man: on behalf of many others on this site, I would like to thank you, for your dedication in displaying the very worst sort of scientific mind that could exist: you have a pet theory, and you will do your damnedest to make sure that theory does not have any serious challenges, creating all sorts of evidence that supports it, discarding any evidence that does not.
I suspect that I am not alone on this site in having no theory: I do not have the data, nor access to gaining data, to formulate my own theory. What I can do is what any good scientific mind should do – challenge any theory that is presented. The beauty of that is that one does not have to be a specialist in the subject to do that. Sadly (for you), the AGW theory is so full of holes it would not work as a colander, yet you still cling so avidly to it.
A good scientific mind will observe a phenomenon, develop a theory to explain that phenomenon, then test the theory. The theory will then evolve, until it becomes the best explanation yet found – note: "the best yet found", the implication being that it is accepted that it is possible that it is not THE explanation, but only the best yet found, having passed every test yet devised to disprove it. To paraphrase Einstein: “It only takes one experiment to prove me wrong.” To paraphrase Feynman: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful the theory, how important the scientist, if the evidence does not fit the theory, the theory is wrong!” Surely, even if you cannot accept that the theory of AGW is wrong, you have to admit that it is seriously flawed.
Radical Rodent
Apologies, given the typical tone of this site, I keep forgetting that many of the commenters are gentle sensitive types. I shall endeavour to be less sarcastic in future. I can't guarantee that I will succeed.
Alan,
FWIW, I again apologise, but if you're going to accuse me of abusing you and then go on to insult me, I'm not sure what else you expect. Especially as I apologised for asking about your understanding of SATs, when you indicated that your felt the question was personal.
RR,
EM's explanation is pretty solid. The heat capacity of the climate system is probably around 10^{24}J/K. If we regularly had sustained energy imbalances of 0.6W/m^2, or higher, we would be accruing energy at 10^{22}J/year and would see evidence for many centennial-scale temperature variations of 1C, or higher. We see little evidence for such variability and, hence, little evidence that planetary energy imbalances of around 0.6W/m^2, or higher, is the norm.
...and Then There's Physics
Radical Rodent
(Sarc/on) Unlike yourself, I have not spent tens of thousands of hours sat at a keyboard. Thus I do not achieve perfection, as you do.(sarc/off)
For the 15 mm/year sea level rise, look at this AVISO graph. Note the change in reference sea level from 70 to 85mm since the start of 2015.
Did you not read my numbers? 10,000 years ago the imbalance was somewhere between warming 0.05W/M^2 and zero.1500 years ago the cooling imbalance was about 0.02W/M^2.
Einstein or Feynnman would have read your last post and laughed heartily. As I said to Micky H Corbett, there are no perfect hypotheses. A working scientist uses the best fit hypothesis available and works to improve it. In the meantime he/she uses it to learn more about reality.That is what I do
Meanwhile you sit there like a fool, claiming that you have NOTHING at all. You are no scientist.
Entropic man
FWIW, I again apologise, but if you're going to accuse me of abusing you and then go on to insult me, I'm not sure what else you expect. Especially as I apologised for asking about your understanding of SATs, when you indicated that your felt the question was personal.
Both aTTP and EM are masters of the qualified apology (I apologise, but you deserved it) and the conditional apology (if you assure me blah blah blah, I'll apologise).
Guys, save it. If you can't simply say "I'm sorry it was wrong of me to say that" or similar, don't waste the keystrokes.
As I said before, a conditional apology (or a qualified one for that matter) is not worth a soft dog turd. It does nothing to mitigate the impression you have made as to what you are like as a person by whatever it was that you said.
Meanwhile you sit there like a fool, claiming that you have NOTHING at all. You are no scientist.
EM - presumably you impress yourself with comments like that but I doubt that anyone else is impressed.
Martin A
Martin,
Apologies if my apologies aren't up to the standards you expect. Maybe it's because I'm tired of apologising to people who frequent - positively that is - a site that specialises in abusing people with whom the site owner and commenters disagree. How's that for a qualified apology apology? I realise that the way you and others avoid making qualified apologies is by - apparently - never apologising. Clever that.
...and Then There's Physics
Ken, as I said, better to save the keystrokes.
Martin A
EM: I certainly read your numbers. You give an average energy imbalance over several thousand years, then equate it with an average over a few decades; that is similar to viewing the increase in heat from sunrise to midday, and extrapolating that to cataclysmic temperatures within a year – daft.
Let’s have a look at a time when the temperature increase was apparently very rapid (i.e. large energy imbalance). Now, what was the energy imbalance between 170,000BC – 169,975BC? Can’t tell me? Well, how do you know that today’s imbalance is… erm… out of balance? Just what, exactly, is “normal”?
I ask again: what has been the average energy imbalance over the past 2,000 years?
Radical Rodent
EM:
Meanwhile you sit there like a fool, claiming that you have NOTHING at all. You are no scientist.And you obviously do not read what I have written: while I might be a fool, I did not say that I have NOTHING; I said I have no theory. I doubt that discounts me from being a scientist. Please read what is written, not what you think is written. Mind you, I have never claimed to be a scientist, but I certainly think that I have more capability for scientific thinking than you display.
Sadly, even if they were alive, I doubt either Einstein or Feynman would be interested in whatever I have said.
Radical Rodent
There are sites out there with very convincing evidence that CO2 may not be the driving force in global warming.
They certainly help to explain why Mars appears to be experiencing global warming, too.
Radical Rodent
Martin,
If I was wanting to save key strokes, I wouldn't be commenting here.
...and Then There's Physics
Radical Rodent
I suspect you misunderstand the concept of energy imbalance. It is the difference between the amount of energy entering the atmosphere and the amount of energy leaving it at a particular moment This determines the rate at which the climate system is gaining or losing energy at the time the measurement was made.
If you take a number of measurements you can calculate an average imbalance over a period of time. From that you infer the rate of change in energy content and the rate of change in temperature.
If you know the temperature difference between two different times, you can use that to calculate the change in energy and from that the average imbalance necessary to produce the change.
Now, what was the energy imbalance between 170,000BC – 169,975BC?
As it stands this question is meaningless. There is no energy imbalance between two dates, only between the incoming and outgoing radiation.Do you mean the average energy imbalance during that time period?
If so, the calculation is easy. There are 25 years, 0.25 centuries, between the two dates you mention. Look up the temperature for each date , calculate the difference between them and multiply by 4 to get the rate of temperature change in degrees per century. That will also be the energy imbalance in W/m^2.
I ask again: what has been the average energy imbalance over the past 2,000 years?
I will say it again, in simpler words. The rate of cooling over the 5000 years to 1850 was a fairly constant 0.02C/century, equivalent to an imbalance of 0.02W/m^2. That is the average for the 5000 year period, Since the rate of cooling was fairly constant the average for the last 2000 years of that period was also 0.02C/century and the imbalance 0.02W/m^2.
You might ask cypress why his/ her graphs stop in 1980. You might also ask why the number of sunspots has fallen over the most recent solar cycle but temperatures continue to rise? That falsifies her hypothesis.
Oh dear, perhaps you should reread your Mars link. The link was written in 2003. At that time the Martian South Pole icecap was melting because it was Spring in the Southern Hemisphere of Mars. No global warming required.
Entropic man
Thank you, you patronising… person. I am so sorry that I did not make sure that my wording of the phrase was selected such that there could be no misinterpretation of what was meant within the sentence; it would be interesting to know if anyone else read my question as you chose to read it. Hey-ho.
You are right that the imbalance is not constant.
Apr 16, 2016 at 10:55 AM | Entropic man
The rate of cooling over the 5000 years to 1850 was a fairly constant…
Apr 16, 2016 at 4:46 PM | Entropic man
Do show some consistency, please. Now, how can you be so sure that those 5,000 years was as constant as you assure us that it was? What was the equivalent per century average energy imbalance between, say, 3,525 years ago (ya) and 3,500 ya? What was the average energy imbalance between the Roman Warm Period and the Dark Ages? What was the average energy imbalance between the Dark Ages and the Mediaeval Warm Period? What was the average energy imbalance between the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age? What was the equivalent per century average energy imbalance between 875AD – 900AD? Or 1245 – 1270?
If there is no data, there is no data – you cannot just make it up!
Blimey! You were quick to read that Mars link! I noticed that it was really about seasonal differences within a few minutes after posting it, so changed it to a more recent (2007) NatGeo link. Sorry to have caused you confusion by doing so.
… temperatures continue to rise…Do they? You do seem to be one of the few people who are adamant about this; most other organisations accepted that there has been a pause, with no significant rise, for nearly two decades, now.
Radical Rodent
most other organisations accepted that there has been a pause, with no significant rise, for nearly two decades, now.
The global temperature in March has shattered a century-long record and by the greatest margin yet seen for any month.
NASA GISS - March 2016 circled in red. Click
Using the definition of the longest time with a negative slope, the pauses on all data sets have either ended or will end soon.- WUWT
Mind you, in some datasets, March was a tad cooler than February. No Global Warming since 2016!
Phil Clarke
The global temperature in March has shattered a century-long record…So, it has been warmer – and at a time when it was supposed to be so much cooler than now. Curious.
Radical Rodent
No - it means it has never been this hot at any time in the record.
Compared with the 20th-century average, March was 1.07C hotter across the globe, according to the JMA figures, while February was 1.04C higher. The JMA measurements go back to 1891 and show that every one of the past 11 months has been the hottest ever recorded for that month.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record
The data: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/mar_wld.html
Phil Clarke
aTTP. If the cap fits.
Your responses never addressed the specific question I posed. You try reading it again.
I consider it insulting for you to imply I did not know that climate scientists have the peculiar view that change equals anomaly. You don't even use the english language correctly (they are not synonyms).
I asked my question in good faith and you singularly failed to address it. When I expressed frustration over this, you snap back.
Well done.