Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 Next
Comments 56651 to 56700:
-
Tom Curtis at 10:20 AM on 15 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Joe RG @61, in reverse order:"Do we compare the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphereless planet with the equ. temp. for the radiative balance on TOA? If so, why is it feasible to use the amount of radiation which results from a reduction of an atmospheric effect (clouds) - or did I just misunderstood your comment?"
Consider the following diagram:
From that diagram it is possible to determine the albedo of the Earth's surface. It is the reflected short wave radiation from the surface (23 W/m^2) divided by the incoming short wave radiation that actually strikes the surface (184 W/m^2). That is, it is 0.125, about 10% greater than the Moon's albedo. If you remove the atmosphere entirely, the full 341 W/m^2 of incoming solar radiation will strike the surface of the Earth. It must do so because there are no clouds to reflect the radiation, and no atmosphere to absorb it. The result would be that 42.6 W/m^2 will be reflected. So,
Even if we assume that the plants continue to grow with no atmosphere so that the land albedo is not increased;
Even if we assume that sea ice extent does not expand, and no ice sheets form on land; and
Even if we assume the extremes in temperature on the Earth's surface do not increase, and indeed that the surface has a uniform temperature,
the mean global surface temperature would fall from 288 K to 270 K; ie, four times the current best estimate of the difference in temperature between the holocene and the last glacial maximum.
That represents your best case scenario; and given that it is obvious that sea ice will extend and that albedo will rise rapidly.
*****
"The missing air pressure is compensated at about 1m depth. Besides, the boiling while freezing will end at the moment when the resulting water vapor forms an adequate atmosphere with the appropriate pressure by itself - and it will, because of the gravitation the water get not lost, except you have a source that blows it away."
If you don't mind my saying so, you need to think things through. First, the boiling (or rapidly evaporating) surface will drastically cool the surface, thereby rapidly cooling the oceans. The result is that the oceans will gain a crust of ice far quicker than simple considerations of temperature alone would suggest. Secondly, one meter of ice will stop the boiling, but it will also massively increase albedo. Further, It would strongly insulate the surface from retained heat in the ocean, thus preventing significant transfer of heat from the tropics to the poles at the surface. If it did not so insulate the surface, the Ocean would freeze completely very quickly, for ice has a very low emissivity for visible light (and hence a high albedo) but a very high emissivity for IR radiation. Thirdly, there are regions of the globe (most notably in the Arctic Circle) in which sunlight is insufficient to melt ice without the assistance of transported heat from the tropics. That means that any H2O atmosphere that starts to form from the boiling of the oceans at the tropics (due to low pressure) will precipitate out as frost in the arctic regions, thereby forming ice sheets over land, and increasing the depth of the sea ice over sea. This process may be stopped when sufficient water has boiled away to lower sea level significantly below the level of the ice sheets so that gravity can prevent the water vapour from being blown toward the very low pressure regions over the poles. To do that, however, sea level would need to fall by thousands of meters, giving Earth an ice age more intense than any it has experience in the past, including during Snow Ball Earth episodes. The consequence is that for all intents and purposes the albedo of Earth will rise to that of dirty ice (dirty because of ejecta from volcanoes). Even assuming equal temperatures over the globe, that results in a predicted temperature of around 186 K (albedo of 0.8 assumed). This is close to the best case for you assuming any remotely physical scenario. There would be a small greenhouse effect due to the very thin H2O, CO2, and O2/O3 atmosphere sustained by sublimation from Ice, dissassociation of H from H2O by UV light, and volcanism; but it would not raise the temperature by much. More later. -
Doug Bostrom at 10:15 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
RandomUK: The person who was supposed to investigate Mann at Penn State failed to investigate a paedophile at the university. McIntyre's point is that if someone can allow a man to rape children so as to have a winning sports team, the same man might whitewash Mann to keep the rapid flow of research funding. Since the investigation looked very much to any objective observer like a whitewash, this was a relevant point. Which person? Here are the people who handled Mann's case: Composition of the Investigatory Committee: Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor Department of Biology Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor and Eberly Distinguished Chair in Science Department of Chemistry and Department of Physics Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering Nina G. Jablonski, Department Head and Professor Department of Anthropology Fred W. Vondracek, Professor Department of Human Development and Family Studies Research Integrity Officer: Candice Yekel, Director of the Office for Research Protections Were all of these people in on the "whitewash?" How exactly did they all participate in the coverup? Details, please, or how about an apology? You don't know any of these people but that doesn't mean you're free to drag them through the mud willy-nilly. The briefest of searches reveals other, easily available and more appropriate illustrations of research misconduct investigations. Perhaps it was an accident but McIntyre somehow chose the most inflammatory and nasty example possible and one that I'll add had nothing to do with scientific research. -
Doug Bostrom at 09:38 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Albatross mentions 5) It is true that the misleading claims made by Mr. McIntyre are about a sub-set of peer-reviewed papers (i.e., papers by by 'skeptics' pretty much get a free pass), he especially holds disdain for Dr. Mike Mann. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth. That seems fairly clear; I don't believe anybody searching McIntyre's site could disagree about Mann being a particular topic of fascination for McIntyre. 4) and 5) are a little more problematic. For instance, you can easily find McIntyre using the word "fraud" in association with discussion of Mann but I'm not sure McIntyre has said words to the exact effect of "Mann has committed fraud." We've a particularly rich language in English so we've words to describe the situation; "aspersion by innuendo" is one possibility. Accusation overshoots the mark but on the other hand McIntyre is a skilled rhetorician so he successfully steers us to conclusions without needing to make baldfaced pronouncements. ATI also has shown a particular interest in Mann, as well as Hansen. There is a unifying theme to researchers chosen for harassment; it seems for the most part the selection process is more about which researcher's work has generated more publicity about global warming as opposed to which researcher's work is more likely broken. Gergis et al is a nice example. As it happens there was a problem with the Gergis paper but that wasn't what attracted the attention of McIntyre and Crew; Gergis enjoyed unusual press coverage so eyeballs swerved in the direction of the paper. Of course it almost goes without saying that Mann and Hansen are the right in the bull's eye. RandomUK is among many who are very concerned with obtaining ice core analysis data. To a layman such as me, the focus on the analytic data as opposed to the cores themselves suggests suspicion of incompetence or worse. The first mention of Lonnie Thompson by McIntyre I can find is in connection with Mann; to a bystander Thompson seems to have been found guilty of some form of misbehavior through his work being associated with Mann. Clouded thinking. What about a fresh analysis of the ice cores themselves? Seems to me that a complete redo would be the best way to go, assuming there's some reason to doubt Thompson's results. Can anybody point to something in Thompson's actual publications justifying such an investment? That is to say, limiting one's power of imagination to exclude assumptions about nefarious behavior and looking at the publications themselves, is there a red flag? What's been offered in that way? There's an awful lot of pure process in the work of ATI and for that matter McIntyre. ATI's griping is purely about paperwork and McIntyre's not far behind. -
Tom Curtis at 09:33 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
RandomUK @25: 1) For the most part, instances of data not being supplied on request to Mr McIntyre have come about because the particular researchers did not own the intellectual property rights to the data, or where the data was being retained to secure priority of publication on information relevant to the data. Mr McIntyre has shown himself wholly uninterested in such trivial matters as to who owns the data and has a right to distribute it, and has frequently insisted that researchers should violate legal contracts to provide to him data. 2) On at least one instance Mr McIntyre has maintain he was not granted access to data which was freely downloadable from an FTP site. 3) On at least one occasion, Mr McIntyre has continued to make FOI requests for data that was not owned by the person to whom he made the requests, while in possession of the data, having received it from the person who owned the data, and to whom he had been referred upon making his original request. Facts (2) and (3) make it quite plain that McIntyre's primary purpose in his FOI requests is harassment rather than obtaining of the data. Further, I reject completely the silly notion that scientists should make their data and code freely available to anybody who requests it. Nor, in fact, do you accept (or anyone else, who is reasonable) accept that standard. You, and everybody else pushing this false standard, always make exceptions for scientists working in private industry - as they must if private industry is to employ scientists for profit. However, if private (or defense) scientists are to be exempted from this standard, it is not a standard for the proper practice of science. What is required of all scientists is that their published work fairly represent the data that they have; and that their work be replicable. For that purpose, it is necessary that they describe how they collected their data in sufficient detail that other competent scientists could gather equivalent data if required; and that they describe how they analyzed the data in sufficient detail that others can repeat the analysis. As it happens, the work of the Hadley Center and the University of East Anglia CRU was replicated by NASA GISS, and by the NCDC, and now by multiple others. None of them required Hadley's original data sets or algorithms to do so. On the contrary, they developed their own data sets and algorithms. Scientists often share data and algorithms as a courtesy, but it is always a courtesy, not a right. As such, scientists have every right to not extend that courtesy to those they have good reason to think will abuse it, such as McIntyre. -
Albatross at 08:51 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Doug and DK, DK, sorry. I'll try harder to stay within the guidelines, it is difficult though when certain people continue to make such ludicrous accusations. Doug, it is the actions by people like Mr. McIntyre that have necessitated the formation of the legal defence fund. I find it so very sad that in the 21st century climate scientists are being harassed, persecuted and reviled for simply doing their jobs. That this is happening is totally unacceptable and disgusting. This is the statement that McIntyre took offence to: "Commentators with no scientific expertise, ranging from politicians such as Republican congressman Joe Barton from Texas, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, or Republican Senator James Inhofe from Oklahoma, to blog writers Stephen McIntyre and Marc Morano, have repeatedly promulgated misinformation and sought to launch formal investigations into Mann’s research, claiming professional misconduct or worse, even though it had been peer reviewed and confirmed by other scientists." 1) It is true that Mr. McIntyre is not a scientist and has no paleo climate expertise. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth. 2) It is true that Mr. McIntyre is a blog writer. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth. 3) It is true that Mr. McIntyre has repeatedly promulgated misinformation and sought to launch formal investigations into Mann's research. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth 4) It is true that Mr. McIntyre has made claims of misconduct by Dr. Mike Mann , including other climate scientists. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth. 5) It is true that the misleading claims made by Mr. McIntyre are about a sub-set of peer-reviewed papers (i.e., papers by by 'skeptics' pretty much get a free pass), he especially holds disdain for Dr. Mike Mann. Dr. Karoly spoke the truth. Let it also be noted that Mr. McIntyre has and repeatedly made mountains out of molehills, or other "skeptic" blogs have used his blog posts to do the same. So, in my opinion, the facts demonstrate that Dr. Karoly has nothing to retract or apologize for. The same, however, apparently cannot be said for Mr. McIntyre. -
RandomUK at 08:35 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
[Moderation comment snipped]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You can discuss transparency without discussing motives. Most of the other posters on this thread seem to be able to manage it, although often sailing close to the wind. I am factoring it into the moderation of the discussion, however your inflamatory agressive tone makes it very difficult to maintain a rational discussion and hence invites moderation. The comments policy at SkS means that it is not a good venue for the usual unproductive rhetorical arguments that dominate many other blogs and why the discussion is more science based. People post here because they like the atmosphere that the comments policy helps to create, so if you want to post here, the onus is on you to fit in. -
RandomUK at 08:26 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
"You can ask the original researchers who created the data for it." The whole reason for the need for FOI requests is that they refused to give the data! ""Repeatable and testable" does not stop at "doing the exact same analysis with the exact same data and exact same code."" No, and I never said it did. However it often will require that, especially in many of the cases of climate data where other researchers have not been able to come up with the same results even with the full data set at some point in processing. I was taught at the age of eleven to record my observations and method in enough detail to reproduce my results, and with any reasoning needed to come to whatever conclusion I gave. That stood me in good stead through not only a science degree but my current job too. Have researchers really all forgotten these basic principles? I don't know what you mean about self-styled auditors, but the people who trained me, the people who employ me and the regulators style me an auditor, as that is part of my job. I can tell you that all branches of science need auditing, medical and climate sciences the most urgently. -
WheelsOC at 08:17 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Then any result of the code is not science. If it is not repeatable and testable it is not science. If these people wish to participate in real science they should negotiate different terms for intellectual property. Ridiculous. Your standard for what constitutes science is what can be shared through a FOI request and what can be kept behind an IP paywall? [Inflamatory snipped] There are many ways to reproduce a study. You can ask the original researchers who created the data for it. You can ask the authors who used it in their own study for it. They can sometimes give it to you, sometimes you must go through a license, or they can refuse to share it for whatever reason and tell you go get your own data and do your own work. It doesn't even have to data or analyses of the kind that were used, as long as it can reasonably demonstrate that the findings of the researchers are not invalid. Cross-checking different lines of evidence, different data, and different methods are all ways that a conclusion can be verified in science. "Repeatable and testable" does not stop at "doing the exact same analysis with the exact same data and exact same code." Often such exercises are a waste of time anyway. One or all of those things can be different and the claim you've investigate can still be perfectly scientific. When several bloggers around these parts wanted to check the validity of NASA'S GISTEMP (I think it was), they went to the publicly available data and assembled their own subset, different from NASA's, and developed a method to average temperatures over the world over time, different from NASA's. There was no need to use the exact same data and same methods. I recommend you take a step away from the self-styled "auditors" and get some perspective from the broader scientific community about what constitutes acceptable standards.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can we all keep the discussion calm and resonable, whatever the percieved provocation. -
chriskoz at 08:00 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Carrick @12,you said: Any code or data related to public policy decisions that is paid for by the public should be seen as publicly owned. Period That's an incorrect statement. And an indication that you, like most climate science deniers who try to harass the scientists, do not understand the limitations of FIO. In many cases, the code those sicentists work with, is the intellectual property of the institutions where they work. In such case, the affected scientist cannot comply with the frivolous FOI request to release it, as it would be a breach of IP. Only the data supporting the results of public policy research, and the detailed description of the algorithm (e.g. in the form of a patent that a person skilled in the art can implement) to reproduce the rsults must be disclosed. Certainly, anyone can file any FOI requests. However, when such requests are demanding information constituing an infringment, then the receipient of such FOI can file a harasment lawsuit, which would have a very good standing. I excpect, in the coming years, the scientists who have been given legal advice by AGU, will become bold enough to start filing such lawsuits. Good luck. -
RandomUK at 07:53 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
response to moderator Hahahaha [Moderation complaint snipped]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] This is your final warning, comply with the comments policy and we will engage with the points you raise. Fail to comply and your posts will be deleted. Note moderation complains are off-topic and are deleted, after reading. -
RandomUK at 07:51 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
doug "But then neither is it the case that McIntyre's extended examination of sexual molestation of minors at Penn State in connection with star academics at Penn State has anything to do with the Penn State researcher with whom McIntyre is most interested." The person who was supposed to investigate Mann at Penn State failed to investigate a paedophile at the university. McIntyre's point is that if someone can allow a man to rape children so as to have a winning sports team, the same man might whitewash Mann to keep the rapid flow of research funding. Since the investigation looked very much to any objective observer like a whitewash, this was a relevant point. As for Ellen Thompson, correcting a small error in the very next post is hardly misinformation, is it? Let alone misinformation on the scale indulged by Mann, Jones, Briffa and so on, is it? [accusation of dishonesty snipped]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Note that parts of your post were not snipped. Please use this as an indication of the boundary of an acceptable posting style. -
RandomUK at 07:41 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
So, if climate science is so solid, and this blog so sceptical, [accusation of dishonesty snipped], and why do so few or the "sceptics" pull him up on it? McIntyre made no threat at all of legal action. He has stated so. Yet there are few comments on this and no correction of a serious misrepresentation. [accusation of dishonesty snipped] The problem you have is that the sceptics are actually honest. [accusation of dishonesty]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Accusations of dishonesty are explicitly forbidden by the comments policy. -
RandomUK at 07:35 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
[Inflamatory snipped]Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Posting here is a a priviledge, not a right. Such an overly inflamatory tone is not conducive to rational discussion. Please moderate your posting style and familiarise yourself with the comments policy. -
JohnMashey at 07:26 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
re: 17 retractions How about McIntyre's absurd claims, shortly after the Wegman Report problems started getting noted at USA Today: Bradley copies Fritts and Bradley copies Fritts 2 wherein he somehow didn't notice the pages of permissions in Bradley's book, and also revealed clear lack of knowledge of textbook construction. Google: bradley copies fritts to see how widely this spread. I contacted Fritts, who was certainly quite angry about all this ... but not at Bradley. -
Albatross at 06:59 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Doug @13 gives us but one very recent example of why we should be dubious and skeptical of claims/assertions made by Mr. McIntyre. As for Carrick claiming "Two withdrawals in two months. Is that as record?", that sounds equally applicable to Mr. McIntyre. Moreover, correcting errors in papers is hardly an offence. That scientists strive to correct mistakes shows that they are interested in the pursuit of truth. That fact should be lauded, not used to suggest or infer that they are being incompetent or anything else having negative connotations. In contrast, "skeptics" rarely if ever retract or correct mistakes/misinformation in their scientific papers, rather they seem content to let their errors and misinformation stand. McKitrick (2004), Loehle (2005) and McIntyre and McKitrick (2007) and McShane and Wyner (2010) come to mind. -
Albatross at 06:34 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Mr. McIntyre says, "I request that you either provide me forthwith with specific examples of the “misinformation that you allege that I’ve promulgated” Sorry, but this is a ludicrous statement by Mr. McIntyre, and does not hold up to even the most superficial or cursory investigations. Dr. Karoly would hardly know where to begin with all the misrepresentations, misinformation and [accusation of dishonesty snipped] that Mr. McIntyre has engaged in over the years. Or is McIntyre limiting himself to only that misinformation directed at Dr. Karoly? Anyone who has been closely following Mr. McIntyre's antics over the years should be very dubious of his claims, his beliefs or his opinions. It is very troubling that scientists have to have a legal defence fund set up for to defend their rights, integrity and academic freedoms. That the "skeptics" have to resort to witch hunts and vendettas only goes to show that their position is void of substance and instead they have to resort to vexatious and [accusation of dishonesty snipped] actions such as Mr. McIntyre has repeatedly done. What is more, I would argue that such actions by "skeptics" should be treated as criminal in nature. To their credit the scientists have indeed exercised maximum restraint in not pushing back or taking them to task, but one has to wonder for how much longer they can do so in light of the increasingly desperate actions of the "skeptics"... As for McIntyre's letter to Dr. Karoly, my interpretation of the language used is styled to a) intimidate and b) contains implied threats of consequences should Dr. Karoly note capitulate to Mr. McIntyre's demands. As sour notes, I too would view this as a first step by McIntyre to threatening or pursuing legal action.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can we all try and stay within the comments policy. This is a thread that is likely to provoke responses that sail close to the wind. Staying away from the boundaries makes fair and equitable moderation much easier. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 04:42 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
The Legal Defense Fund is excellent. Shame it's needed, but that's the way life is. Re the McIntyre letter, if I received that I would take it as potentially the first step in a legal action (here in Australia) and view as apt the description as a 'legal threat'. (If that's what Prof Karoly was referring to.) It's an abuse of the law to use FOI requests to harass scientists. Does FOI law apply to requests from non-taxpayers (ie people residing overseas)? As many of us are well aware, McIntyre 'not believing' something doesn't make it not so. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:39 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
It seems to me that Rashomon should be required viewing for anyone rushing to claim dishonesty or wrong-doing in others - we are all masters of self-delusion, it is part of human nature. We shouldn't need the CSLDF, it is a sad indictment of our society that we apparently do. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:55 AM on 15 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
Just a little bit of "adaptation" in the form of 6" of muck in one's living room goes a long way in driving forward acknowledgement that no exceptions are available regarding conservation of energy. Extreme precipitation in the UK is appearing as long predicted and blame apportionment for ignoring advice of scientists and planners has commenced, as evidenced in this article: Caroline Spelman's deep cuts to flood defences begin to look foolish" -
ajki at 03:51 AM on 15 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
German speaking user might be interested in an interview, given by Dr Michael E. Mann to the german newspaper "taz" (a paper loosely connected to the "alternative" scene in Germany), published this weekend: "...Ich bekam Morddrohungen, aber das ist auch Kollegen von mir in Großbritannien oder Australien passiert. ..." [taz.de] ('I got murder threads but that happened colleagues in GB and Australia, too') -
Doug Bostrom at 03:30 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Dr. Mandia: We will also have an attorney available on several days for one-on-one sessions with any scientists who have legal questions. Strange times we live in. I've just read the letter from Steve McIntyre (coincidentally posted today by McIntyre) to Dr. Karoly. McIntyre's assertions are twofold. First, McIntyre believes that he's innocent of conveying misinformation: I request that you either provide me forthwith with specific examples of the “misinformation” that you allege that I’ve promulgated or withdraw the allegation with an apology. Begging the question, "Or what?" What happens if Karoly ignores McIntyre? In any case one only has to go back a few days to find McIntyre correcting himself on his own site, attempting to undo what reasonably might be called "misinformation": In particular, I observed that Ellen [Thompson] had archived nothing from the 15 expeditions to Greenland and Antarctica that, according to her CV, she had led. A few words later, we read: Despite Thompson’s claim, no data whatever is archived for many ice cores. "Many," or "none?" McIntyre is making this explanation because he claimed Ellen Thompson had archived none of her ice core data but was subsequently corrected by Lonnie Thompson. Many paragraphs of explanation ensue, but stripping away all the handwaving it appears McIntyre got it wrong in this post and published his misunderstanding to his audience. Second, McIntyre's feelings are still wounded over what he thinks was mistreatment over the Gergis paper. Of this he says: I do not believe that you identified the error independently of the discussion at Climate Audit and accordingly it is my opinion that your failure to acknowledge Climate Audit in your public statement constitutes the use of ideas and/or work derived from Climate Audit without the appropriate acknowledgement. It's not unreasonable to interpret "...your failure to acknowledge Climate Audit in your public statement constitutes the use of ideas and/or work derived from Climate Audit without the appropriate acknowledgement..." as legal-speak. True, it's not an explicit legal threat. But then neither is it the case that McIntyre's extended examination of sexual molestation of minors at Penn State in connection with star academics at Penn State has anything to do with the Penn State researcher with whom McIntyre is most interested. No, a person who didn't understand this fight wouldn't know that, but everybody with a clue about McIntyre versus Mann will instantly recognize the winking smirk of the essay. Presumably the FOI requests Karoly has has received are to do with establishing "ownership" of the Gergis correction. Not that McIntyre necessarily has anything to do with those FOI requests, of course; I don't know that and just mention it in the same spirit as the Penn State post by McIntyre. -
Carrick at 03:27 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
I have also read the letter and do not believe that Dr. Karoly received a legal threat from Seven McIntyre, at least in this letter. If there is a separate letter where a legal action was actually threatened, Dr. Karaly should publish this, otherwise he should admit that he has once again dishonestly represented the words and actions of another person. Beyond that, Karoly should admit to his prior misrepresentations of Steven McIntyre's work and for failing to acknowledge the role that Climate Audit played in uncovering the error in his and Gergis' paper, that forced the withdrawal of this paper, and admit that it was errors and misrepresentations of other people's works that led the withdrawal of his book review by the editors, no doubt in part because of concerns on their part for the legal exposure related to unsubstantiable accusations made in that review. Two withdrawals in two months. Is that as record? That said, I agree with Mashey that Wegman's code should be released. Same for Nasa's AQUA code which they have not released, same for Roy Spencer's code, and so forth. Any code or data related to public policy decisions that is paid for by the public should be seen as publicly owned. Period. Researchers who fail to live to this standards shouldn't have to worry about FOIAs from people requesting access to their code and data, but cut off from federal funding and loss of tenureship for their failure to meet minimum standards of academic behavior. -
dubious at 02:18 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
dkaroly "In Australia, I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre in Canada" Stephen McIntyre has said that this is not true - that he has not made any threat of legal action. He is calling this "Another untrue allegation by Karoly". Please could you (Dr Karoly) offer some support for what you have said here. -
ProfMandia at 02:05 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Doug, Thank you for the excellent article. In addition to the formal session linked in the story above, at this year's AGU in December 2012 CSLDF and AGU will be hosting three daytime legal workshops. We will also have an attorney available on several days for one-on-one sessions with any scientists who have legal questions. AGU should be applauded for helping to make this happen. It is critical for large scientific bodies to send the message that these types of witch-hunts will not go unanswered. -
John Chapman at 01:16 AM on 15 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Monkton has threatened lawsuits, but there is no history or suggestion that he intends to follow through with his threats. He is undoubtedly aware that any hearings will expose him as the fraud he is. No scientist (or friends) should have to spend a penny defending themselves against the ignorant. Though maybe a good court case is exactly what we need to get publicity for the antics of the deniers! -
Alexandre at 00:46 AM on 15 July 2012Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
Thank you Tom, that certainly helps me understand the context. As I understood your post, you seem to say that the overall stratospheric temp behaviour is not caused solely by the CO2 GHE, but its fingerprint there is discernible nonetheless. The part that intrigued me most was the paragraph in the Jones 2003 paper that says (as I understood it) that the observed stratospheric temp decline so far is not yet attributable to the enhanced CO2 greenhouse warming - sulphate and ozone forcings being still the dominant factors. Is this correct? If not, did I or the respondent misjudge something? If correct, I'm even wondering if it would justify a correction in the Guide... -
Bernard J. at 00:30 AM on 15 July 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Ttristan. The reasoned part of me thinks that surely even the LNP wouldn't go so far as to actually attempt to emulate North Carolina's attempt to legislate climate change from sight, but the facts that the LNP voted overwhlemingly to do so in their convention, and that one of Newman's first acts was to close the Office of Climate Change, makes me inclined to think twice. Their infatuation with Really Big Coal doesn't help to assauge one's doubts. Of course, the beauty of such a move is that it completely sidesteps the Conservatives' perceived necessity for folk such as David Wojick, Heartland's curriculum consultant. Reason, and the small issue of the sustainability of the planet's life-support systems, lead me to fervently hope that you and your fellow Queenslanders are successful should the LNP ever attempt to move on their resolution. -
Tristan at 00:15 AM on 15 July 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Hah. Just wait for the court challenge. We Queenslanders won't take this laying down. -
Bernard J. at 23:32 PM on 14 July 2012Madness over sea level rise in North Carolina
Now it's moving to Australia: http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/false-prophets-queensland-lnp-votes-to-remove-climate-change-from-schools/ -
Dikran Marsupial at 17:59 PM on 14 July 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
@angusmac I am an engineer (first class degree and PhD in electronic engineering). Your post illustrates the diference between a good engineer and a bad one. A good engineer would make sure they fully understand the problem before making pronouncements, and when their errors were explained to them would not simply restate their position as you did when you wrote: Surely, the best estimate we have for model projection errors is from real-world measurements? I'll try and explain again. Weather is a chaotic process. Therefore if we have several planet Earth's in parallel universes, with identical forcings, we would see variability in the exact trajectory of the weather on each Earth. If you only observe one of these Earths, we have no way of estimating the magnitude of this variability just from the observations. It is a bit like saying you can determine if a coin is biased by flipping it only once. Now if we had exact measurements of initial conditions, the in principle, if we had a model with infinite spatial and temporal resolution, we could simulate the trajectory of the weather on a particular version of the Earth (e.g. this one). However we don't, so the best the modellers can do is to simulate how the climate might change for different sets of initial conditions, so the uncertainty in the projection includes the "parallel Earth" variability that is not present in the observations, due to the uncertainty in the initial conditions. That is why we need to look at the spread of the models. If you understood what the models are actually trying to do, you would understand that (it is a Monte Carlo simulation - a technique well known to engineers). It would appear that my ±30% error range corresponds to AR4 and consequently should not be described as a rule of thumb. No it is a rule of thumb, on the grounds that it has no basis in the statistics of the problem. The fact that you can find an estimate of the trend in the observed climate that has similar error bars does not mean that your rule of thumb is anything more than that. As it happens, the error bars on that figure represent the uncertainty in estimating the trend due to the noise in one realisation of a chaotic process, and hence understimates the uncertainty in the model projections because it doesn't include the "parallel Earth" variability. I'm sorry but your last paragraph is sheer hubris. Climate modellers are costantly revisiting the physics of their models, that is what they do for a living. The parameterised parts especially. I'm sorry this post is a little brusque, however it seems that politely explaining your errors has no effect. -
Sceptical Wombat at 17:52 PM on 14 July 2012New research from last week 20/2012
I agree. The body of this post should be amended to say that Gergis et al has been withdrawn because of a data processing error. Hopefully the error will be corrected and the paper will reappear - in the meantime it doesn't really qualify as "New Research" -
jimspy at 16:46 PM on 14 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Has anyone considered countersuing for litigious harassment, or "abuse of process" as the British call it? -
angusmac at 14:55 PM on 14 July 2012Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
Dikran Marsupial @77 Your response that, "Hansen's projections do a pretty good job," probably illustrates the difference between a scientist and an engineer. As an engineer, if I were to underestimate the wind loading on your house and it collapsed, I would go to jail. Meanwhile, Hansen is in error by a larger margin, however, [----snipped----] also he is lauded for being, "pretty good." C'est la vie. I agree with your statement that, "even if the model physics were perfect... it would only be reasonable to expect the projection to be within the range of internal climate variability." However, I disagree with your statement that the best estimate we have of this variability is the spread of model runs. Surely, the best estimate we have for model projection errors is from real-world measurements? I would suggest that the AR4 linear trend (from FAQ 3.1 Figure 1) of 0.177±0.052°C for the last 25 years is as good as any for estimating the model errors. Incidentally, the ±0.052°C range above equates to a ±29% error range. It would appear that my ±30% error range corresponds to AR4 and consequently should not be described as a rule of thumb. Finally, if real-world temperatures are currently running at the models' minus-2-sigma levels (i.e., 98% of the model temperature runs are higher than the real world) then the physics in the models should be reassessed; particularly those areas where parameterisation (a.k.a. rules of thumb) is/are used.Moderator Response: (Rob P) - inflammatory text snipped. -
DSL at 12:36 PM on 14 July 2012Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
Thanks, Tom. I had been wondering about O3 as well, and I felt an edge of sketchiness claiming increased GHG = TLS cooling. What you say takes the edge off. -
JohnMashey at 11:28 AM on 14 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
dkaroly: Some FOIAs are designed to waste researchers' time or be giant fishing expeditions. Others are actually simple requests for easily-findable information, as for code about code used in a certain well-known report to Congress, and whether or not a Congressman got a truthful answer when he asked for it. He didn't. Presumably Steve McIntyre will add his voice to demands that this code will be released by Ed Wegman or whoever has it. After all, it was almost certainly his code in the first place. -
Tom Curtis at 10:31 AM on 14 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
dkaroly @3, very sorry to here about the continued harassment of Australian Climate Scientists. My vague understanding of Australian Law is that a fee to cover the costs of an FOI request can be charged. If that is the case, I hope you are carefully documenting all costs involved in satisfying McIntyre's frivolous requests so that for once, he can at least pay part of the true cost of his harassment. -
Tom Curtis at 10:27 AM on 14 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
doug_bostrom @4, McIntyre's hurt feelings are entirely unwarranted. It was not he, but one of his commentors that noted that there may be a problem; and the commentor did not identify the problem. They merely indicated that they could not reproduce the results without specifying what they had done, or what part of the results she could not reproduce. All the heavy lifting in actually identifying the problem was done by the authors. -
Tom Curtis at 09:54 AM on 14 July 2012Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
Alexandre @119, your respondent was quite correct, there are several other potential causes of a cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere. The include: 1) A declining reflective particulate (Sulphate) layer in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere; 2) Declining ozone (O3) layer in the stratosphere; and 3) Increased methane (CH4) and the chemical decay product of methane, water (H2O) in the stratosphere. We can ignore (3) because the known quantities of methane and water in the stratosphere are too small to cause the observed cooling (see the figure below). Further, methane is itself an anthropogenic greenhouse gas, so its implications are much the same as that from increased CO2. (Note that there has been an increase in water vapour in the stratosphere only because of the increase in methane.) Both (1) and (2) are known causes of a similar effect to CO2, and are known to have occurred recently. There are, however, important differences in their effects. Specifically, a declining ozone concentration will cool the upper stratosphere and warm the lower stratosphere. That is because reduced ozone means less UV radiation is absorbed in the upper stratosphere, and so is absorbed in the lower stratosphere or troposphere instead.
(Source)
In fact, what has been observed is very strong cooling in the upper stratosphere, and weak cooling in the lower stratosphere where CO2 and O3 have opposed effects which indicates that both effects are occurring as predicted.
(Source)
More importantly, warming of the troposphere by both ozone and sulphates work by modulating solar radiation. Consequently they are strongest when the sun is strongest, and weakest when the sun is weakest. That means for both, we would predict greater warming in summer than in winter; greater warming in daytime than in night time; and greater warming in the tropics than in the arctic. Greenhouse warming makes exactly the reverse prediction, ie, greater warming in winter, at night, and in the arctic. In fact, what has been observed is greater warming in winter than in summer; greater warming at night than in day; and greater warming in the arctic than in the tropics:
(Source; note that two coauthors of this paper are well known deniers. Further, this paper used data known to be strongly contaminated by stratospheric data, weakening the effect being observed. They do not note this, nor take it into account in their conclusions. Never-the-less, the data speaks for itself.)
(Source)
Unfortunately in science things are often complex. In this case a complexity arises because a primary feedback on rising temperatures, the water vapour feedback, has the same temperature signature as an increase in CO2 in the troposphere (although it does not cool the stratosphere). The water vapour feedback on a greenhouse warming will reinforce the expected pattern of temperature changes in the troposphere. In contrast, it will counter the expected effect from solar related forcings such as changes in ozone or sulphate levels. Never-the-less, if the feedback is very strong, the feedback pattern will dominate. Therefore the patterns seen above do not by themselves prove the source of warming to be an enhanced greenhouse effect due to increased CO2. What they do prove is that either it is an enhanced greenhouse effect; or that climate sensitivity is high. As the initial warming effect of increased CO2 is well established science, however, a strong feedback also shows that the enhanced greenhouse effect is a genuine danger.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed html. -
Doug Bostrom at 08:40 AM on 14 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
I'm very sorry to hear that, David. Presumably the instinct to dig into your dumpster means McIntyre's argument with your science is equally as nonexistent as ATI's beef with Mann, Hansen, Hayhoe, Dessler, etc.? I remember that McIntyre's feelings were hurt because he felt he wasn't properly credited with noticing a fault in a recent paper you coauthored but surely he's not taking out his resentment in such a drastic way? Does he offer any clue as to what's motivating his waste of your time? -
dkaroly at 08:06 AM on 14 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
This is a very welcome initiative. The threats of legal action and FOI requests are not just occurring in North America. In Australia, I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre in Canada and am currently dealing with 6 different FOI requests. -
Alexandre at 04:37 AM on 14 July 2012Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming - Revised
Hi guys, I presented the well-known fact of stratospheric cooling as evidence of AGW at ResearchGate, and one commenter posted the answer below. I gave Jones 2003 (from the Guide to Skepticism) as a reference. My knowledge does not allow to follow it. Is anyone here able to understand and put it into context? I'm sorry, but the assertion combined stratospheric cooling and tropospheric is consistent only with enhanced GHG's is simply incorrect. Even reference (6) by Alexandre states something quite different when you read the relevant sections of the paper. Quote: "For the stratosphere SO is by far the most dominant, cooling by 1.20 ± 0.11°C. As S has no influence on the stratosphere the stratospheric ozone component of SO causes this temperature change. [Tett et al., 2002]. The other forcings have much smaller contributions in comparison (The warming from G in the stratosphere is due predominantly to a warming region in the model over the North polar region [Tett et al., 2002])." SO here refers to the "combined response to changes in sulphate aerosol and tropospheric and stratospheric ozone". G refers to responses to changes in well-mixed greenhouse gases. S refers to responses to changes in solar irradiation. The effect of increased well-mixed GHG's on stratospheric temperatures is much smaller in amplitude and not distinguishable (yet) in the stratospheric temperature record. This is well established in scientific literature, see for example recent work by Polvani and Solomon [2012, submitted]: quote: "The eff ect of ozone depletion on temperature trends in the tropical lower stratosphere is explored with an atmospheric general circulation model, and directly contrasted to the e ffect of increased greenhouse gases and warmer sea surface temperatures. Confi rming and extending earlier studies we find that, over the second half of the 20th Century, the model's lower-stratospheric cooling caused by ozone depletion is several times larger than that induced by increasing greenhouse gases." http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/polvani+solomon-JGR-2012-revised.pdf But it is not well known outside of scientific literature. -
JoeRG at 03:24 AM on 14 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Tom, if I have offended you, I truly apologize. I never meant to do so. @55: For a radiative energy budget on TOA the heat distribution of the atmosphere does not play an important role. Remember that we speak about a (radiative) fully transparent atmosphere where no radiation upwards get lost. It transports the energy to a different location where it will be radiated, but due to the small heat capacity compared to water the effect is not that large. The heat distribution of the oceans is far more important and happens even if no atmosphere is present. Your model and equation require a system which is without any heat distribution downwards below the ground (and backwards). This of course happens (nearly) on the moon. There you have a layer (the uppermost 2 cm of dust) that works as a heat shield. If you would go down only one meter, the temperature is stable independently from the surface temperature. So, heat distribution plays no role at all. But, does this happen on Earth? Obviously not. The thermal conductivity of the Earth surface ist much higher, especially if you look at the oceans. But even for solid ground it is neither comparable to the moon. Therefore another variable must be taken into account: time. No energy will be transmitted in zero time, therefore the rotation as a function of time is also a part to be considered. @56: The missing air pressure is compensated at about 1m depth. Besides, the boiling while freezing will end at the moment when the resulting water vapor forms an adequate atmosphere with the appropriate pressure by itself - and it will, because of the gravitation the water get not lost, except you have a source that blows it away. So, all about the boiling while freezing or an atmosphereless earth can only be purely hypothetical. A final question regarding your last passage: Do we compare the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphereless planet with the equ. temp. for the radiative balance on TOA? If so, why is it feasible to use the amount of radiation which results from a reduction of an atmospheric effect (clouds) - or did I just misunderstood your comment? To do otherwise is to assume that while the clouds no longer contribute to the Earth's albedo, the incident sunlight at the surface (and hence the reflected sunlight at the surface) does not increase. IanC, yes I had it wrong about SB, sorry for that. If you assume a thin layer of water for the outgoing radiation, you should be aware that the absorption for the SW is about 1/10 to 1/100 of the emission of LW - depending on the frequency, of course. So, to be able to radiate the same amount of incoming radiation it is necessary that the uppermost layer must receive the required energy from the deeper layers. This takes time and assumed that the oceanic currents are running, most of the energy disperses. So, the energy balance will be given, but with a different temperature distribution and therefore with a higher average temperature. That's why we see larger differences in net radiation over sea than over land. -
vrooomie at 02:38 AM on 14 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Composer99@ 59: Given it was my lack of understanding of the temperature of an airless Earth (hey, I know about the *rocks*, not the black body temperature!) that was the proximate cause of the thread drift, I apologize. That said, I've learned a HUGE amount from that bit of drift, and I suppose the mods felt it was at least tangentially related to the OP. As always, I learn heaps here. I agree with your assessment, of Dr. Giaever's somewhat stunning admission of ignorance of the subject, then going off on what really amounted to a rant about it, speaking authoritatively on a subject he himself professed little interest in. It was that, and the aforementioned reference to his having done perfunctory "reasearch" on the GoogleBox that intially put me off anything else he had to say. Sadly for those of us who actually do want to engage in a scientific, rational discussion of this whole AGW topic, all it tales is one Nobel laureate to spew, then we (our) job of refutation of it just gets mearsureably that much more difficult. Though the thread did stray a bit, much was imparted in the ensuing discussion, much of which put the lie to a number of incorrect assertions Dr. Giaever posited. I believe that, over all, all our knowledge bases were increased, and we all have a few more "tools" in our toolkit to blunt the deniers' campaign against rational, fact- and data-based climate science. -
Composer99 at 02:07 AM on 14 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
I realize that the whole conversation on what the Earth's global mean temperature would be like follows from one of Dr Giaever's comments, but at this point it seems to me that it's not really pertinent to this post any further. ----- On topic: Dr Giaever's commentI am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it.
is yet another mystifying one. As far as I can tell, what we know about global warming stems in no small part from knowing the radiative physics of greenhouse gases. Other important findings in climate science which relate to global warming also come out of physics, particularly atmospheric physics. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:18 AM on 14 July 2012Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
Hi Tom, I'll have to give the example a lot more thought (and simulate it a bit on my computer - adding stochastic behaviour and temporal correlation makes it very much more difficult to think about). However I have a few observations from my first reading: You write "doesn't really address the question that we are interested in (what causes CO2 concentrations to increase). Should we treat Un and En as separate entities in assigning causality in this model? Yes, without question." For me the real question is "is the rise anthropogenic, or is it natural, or is it both?". Thus to me it makes no sense to consider En separately from Un, as the effect of the natural environment on atmospheric CO2 depends solely on the net flux. This is one point where I am in complete agreement with Prof Salby - it is net emissions that affect CO2 concentrations. It is important to consider En separately from Un if you are interested in the origin of the molecules comprising the excess over equilibrium level, but that is not at all the same question. I think this model shows that if you define "opposes the increase" such that it is true whenever Un > En, you have deprived the term of its intuitive relation to assertions about causality. I disagree. It may be that this definition does not fit with assertions about causality in a theory of knowledge/philosophy of science sense, but I would say those are hardly intuitive. It fits in very well with normal everyday intuition about causality, as my financial example shows. I would prefer to stick with the original financial example until we have reached and understanding about why we appear to disagree about whether I am causing or opposing the rise in the balance. IT may be that causality may be easier to assign in your extended analogy, but then again it is a different analogy, so it still doesn't explain the contradiction exposed by the first. Essentially it seems to me that your are asking whether the increase is caused by natural emissions, whereas I am asking whether the rise is caused by the natural environment (including its response to anthropogenic emissions). These are not the same question, and it is the latter that is relevant to climate change as far as I can see. I'll run your new scenario through the computer and get back to you once I have understood it. -
Tom Curtis at 23:46 PM on 13 July 2012Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
Dikran @53, consider the model where, initialy: Ea = 0; En = k; and Un = k + 1.1Ea, where the later relationship is a strict causal relationship. That is, increasing Ea above zero is a necessary and sufficient condition to increase Un above k, and will always increase Un to 1.1Ea + K. Suppose also the En(t+1) = 2En(t)-En(t-1) + Rand, where Rand is a random number between 1 and -1, except that where this would cause En < k, En = k. Finally, suppose that Ea varies in the same way that En does, except that its "floor" is 0 rather than k. In this model: 1) If En = k + 0.1 Ea, C'= 0 2) If En < k + 0.1 Ea, C'< 0 3) If En > k + 0.1 Ea, C'> 0 4) If k + 0.1 Ea < En < k + 1.1 Ea, C'>0 so that the CO2 concentration is increasing, but your mass balance argument is satisfied, ie, En < Un. In this situation, that En > k + 0.1 Ea is a necessary and sufficient condition for the C' > 0. Therefore it is the cause of the increase in CO2 concentration even when the mass balance argument is satisfied. Further, because there is a causal link between Ea and Un, increasing Ea always opposes the increase in CO2 concentration because it directly results in a still greater increase in Un. Therefore, on those few occasions when the mass balance argument is satisfied in this model, you would still not be entitled to say that an rise in CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions. Would you be able to say the combined effect of Un and En oppose the increase when the mass balance argument is satisfied? Yes - but I think that is a very technical point which doesn't really address the question that we are interested in (what causes CO2 concentrations to increase). Should we treat Un and En as separate entities in assigning causality in this model? Yes, without question. I think this model shows that if you define "opposes the increase" such that it is true whenever Un > En, you have deprived the term of its intuitive relation to assertions about causality. It sounds like you are saying that Un + En do not cause the increase; but there are conditions where it is true that Un + En "oppose the increase" under that definition, but in which Un + En cause the increase because En is the sole and sufficient cause of the increase and hence En + x causes the increase for all x. We can in fact set up this model very easily in your financial analogy. Just add the following two facts to the analogy: a) Whenever I feel like investing, I steal a sum of money from your wallet, deduct 9% for my personal expenses, and invest the remainder; and b) Whenever you have an unexplained shortfall in your wallet, you make up the lost money by withdrawing it from the joint account. These together set up the direct link between Ea and Un; and change the whole situation. Given these additional facts, nobody would doubt that you, not I am responsible for the full increase in our joint account even during those times when your withdrawals exceed your deposits. Of course, developing a scenario like this for CO2 would require incredible contrivance or the assigning of magical properties to CO2. I apologize if this is confusing, or if I have confused myself (which is quite likely) as it is late here and I am quite tired. I look forward to seeing if what I just wrote still makes sense to me tomorrow. -
Jeffrey Davis at 23:27 PM on 13 July 2012Exxon-Mobil CEO Downplays the Global Warming Threat
re:9 Tillerson's remarks that AGW is an engineering problem is "void for vagueness". All of the possible engineering solutions might involve drastically curtailing carbon energy. The simplest ones definitely do. -
IanC at 22:58 PM on 13 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
JoeRG, The Stefan Boltzmann (SB) law, S=εσT^4, describes the emission, not absorption of radiation. It holds over ocean as well as land. Note that it is true regardless of the source of the energy: it can be absorbed solar radiation, or it could be energy transported from below. The fact that solar radiation can penetrate deeper down does not invalidate the SB law. To elaborate on my post @52, suppose the ocean to consist of a thin surface layer and the deeper layer, the energy absorbed by the layer is (1-α)*f*S_0 + S_T where S_0 is the solar radiation, α is the albedo, f is the fraction of solar radiation absorbed by the surface, and S_T is the energy transported from the deeper layer. The energy leaving the surface layer is simply εσT^4. At equilibrium we have: eq1: (1-α)*f*S_0 + S_T= εσT^4. Whatever solar energy that is not absorbed by the surface layer must be absorbed in the deeper layer. At equilibrium it must be balanced by the energy transported to the surface layer, and hence the energy balance in the deep layer requires that eq2: (1-α)*(1-f)*S_0=S_T Combining the two equations by eliminating S_T yields: eq3: (1-α)*S_0 = εσT^4 Which is the exact same equation for the surface. Using α=0.08 as the albedo, and emissivity ε of 0.984 yields T = 273, right at freezing temperature. Source for emissivity. -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:25 PM on 13 July 2012Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
Tom@52 - I would say that the step from En < Un is not inductive, but merely what is for me one reasonable definition of "opposing the increase" rather than "causing the increase". Would you agree that if Un > En that the natural environment could reasonably be said to be "opposing the rise"? I also agree with what you say about Humes rules, and I agree with the conclusions, under that definition of causality , I agree that the mass balance argument is insufficient (I have done some work on probabilistic causal reasoning in the past, so I understand what you are saying). Having said which, it is questionable as to whether En can be treated as a separate entity from Un in assigning causality. If we are concerned with attributing the rise to anthropogenic and natural influences then surely En and Un should only be considered together as they jointly describe "natural influences". However, as the financial analogy shows, that definition of causality isn't necessarily the correct one. In the financial examples, my deposits are also a necessary and sufficient condition for the rise, so for Hume I would be the cause of the rise. But on the other hand most would recognise that my deposits are not the cause of the rise in the balance, and that actually I am syphoning money out for my own benefit (and hence reducing the rate of the rise). I note however here I am not separating En from Un and are consdering them together, whereas you are only considering En in isolation. I should add that I am finding this a very useful and productive discussion; many thanks Tom for your efforts so far. -
Tom Curtis at 21:23 PM on 13 July 2012Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
Dikran Marsupial @50 and @51: Clearly we are talking past each other to an extent. You take the Mass Balance argument to infer from the fact that C'-Ea is negative that En < Un, which is indeed deductive. I take the argument to include the additional inference that the rise in CO2 levels is anthropogenic, which is inductive. Using your terminology we would say the Mass Balance argument is a deductive argument that supports a further inductive inference, but I prefer my terminology as it is that further inference which really interests us (or at least me). I agree that your financial analogy is relevant, but as you appear to realize in your 51, the language of causation is such that, regardless of that analogy it could be said that the increase in natural emissions. If we used Hume's rules to clarify the situation, we would say that En is both a necessary and sufficient condition for the increase, so that it is the cause of the increase; but that En is not sufficient for the early timing of the increase, so that only En + Ea together can be considered the cause of the earlier timing of the increase.
Prev 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 Next
