Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Halsu]

Yes. the atmosphere traps heat.

Great, we have taken the first baby step!

I'm not sure about "equilibrium" here. Is that an assumption or an observation?

It's an observation that is well explained by physics. A fact, if you will.

Does it have to be one equilibrium or can Earth slide from one equilibrium (say, heating the ocean) to another (storing energy as biomass)?

Yes, the equilibrium can change, if one of the factors contributing to the energy budget changes, that's the whole point: that may be i.e. the amount of energy coming in (variations in the sun) or the atmosphere's ability to trap heat (yep, this one is what it's all about: more Co2 increases that).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm also still interested in what Dyson has published that challenge the physics underpinning AGW theory.

Malcolm?

Malcolm?

By saying nothing, Malcolm Kirkpatrick has answered uke2se's question correctly.

 

[Megalodon]

You mean, where marine organisms once made shells from calcium carbonate, they now use titanium?

Yes, that the conditions are not the same as the ones that conducted to the creation of the chalk deposits means that the organisms no longer use calcium carbonate

However, if ocean acidification gets serious enough, coccoliths will no longer produce plates, so then chalk deposits will definitely be off the menu...

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yes, the equilibrium can change, if one of the factors contributing to the energy budget changes, that's the whole point: that may be i.e. the amount of energy coming in (variations in the sun) or the atmosphere's ability to trap heat (yep, this one is what it's all about: more Co2 increases that).

I meant, given constant solar flux and a constant level of atmospheric CO₂, could the equlilibrating mechanism shift? Different tree species dominating forests or different plankton species dominating temperate zone oceans, for example.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

By saying nothing, Malcolm Kirkpatrick has answered uke2se's question correctly.

That's an idea. Thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

That's an idea. Thanks.

So you can't quote what Dyson actually said?

Thanks!

 

[lomiller]

I'm not sure about "equilibrium" here.

Equlibrium is a well understood concept. If you tell us what exactly it is about equilibrium you don’t understand we can explain it to you.

Does it have to be one equilibrium or can Earth slide from one equilibrium (say, heating the ocean) to another (storing energy as biomass)?

If you want to be specific about the energy entering and leaving the Earths atmosphere is a dynamic equilibrium but it’s sometimes convenient to look at a point in time.

Does it have to be one equilibrium or can Earth slide from one equilibrium (say, heating the ocean) to another (storing energy as biomass)?

As I noted above, energy stored as biomass is far too small in relation to the ToA imbalance to be a consideration. Ocean heating is simply a description of where the energy goes, it’s not the equilibrium being discussed.

The requirement for the earth to remain in a relatively constant climate is that the solar energy being absorbed by the earth must equal the infrared energy leaving the top of the atmosphere. Year to year temperature can change a bit depending on how energy is distributed around the atmosphere & ocean but this will be a fairly narrow range. (natural variation in the absence of a long term forcing is ~ +/- 0.2 deg C)

 

[lomiller]

I meant, given constant solar flux and a constant level of atmospheric CO₂, could the equlilibrating mechanism shift? Different tree species dominating forests or different plankton species dominating temperate zone oceans, for example.

Anything that changes the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can change the equilibrium by increasing/decreasing the ease with which IR leaves the atmosphere.

For example the release of sequestered CO2 as northern hemisphere ecosystems pick up speed is a major source of the energy imbalance that course ice sheets to retreat at the end of a glaciations. There does need to be some source of warming to kick off the change in ecosystems, but it can be quite small in comparison to what happens once these ecosystem get going.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...If you tell us what exactly it is about equilibrium you don’t understand we can explain it to you.

I did. I asked if (as the AGW modelers conceive it) the Earth system could shift from one equilibrating mechanism to another with constant solar flux, constant CO₂ and (although I didn't require this) constant output values (temperature) or no change in the function that relates independent variables to dependent variables.

 

[lomiller]

I did. I asked if (as the AGW modelers conceive it) the Earth system could shift from one equilibrating mechanism to another with constant solar flux, constant CO₂ and (although I didn't require this) constant output values (temperature) or no change in the function that relates independent variables to dependent variables.

There are some like ENSO, the NAO, the arctic oscillation, etc, but these by and large are smallish and considers part of the natural variability.

Non-linear systems balanced near a tipping point can be thrown into a new regime by internal variability alone, but there do not seem to be any examples of this in the paleo-climate record. External forcing have been implicated in most of the major climate events, and in most cases greenhouse gasses are either the main trigger or part of the larger scenario. (remember Solar output is remarkably stable compared to greenhouse gas concentrations)

We have about 5 million years of paleo –climate data that shows Holocene like conditions appear to be quite stable. Once in conditions like these orbital forcing can cool the planet slowly, gradually pushing it past a tipping point into a glaciations. In the last 5 million years there are no know spontaneous warming periods occurring within a period of Holocene like conditions.


As a more general comment, you seem to be throwing ideas against the wall randomly hoping to find something that may stick rather than presenting any form of cohesive argument for your position. My guess is that you are just trying to gishgallop your way to a “question” someone doesn’t bother to answer. This occasionally works when preaching to the choir but is wholly ineffective in presenting you case in a sceptic forum.

 

[Halsu]

I meant, given constant solar flux and a constant level of atmospheric CO₂, could the equlilibrating mechanism shift? Different tree species dominating forests or different plankton species dominating temperate zone oceans, for example.

Yes, it can. For example, declining (Edit: for any reason) ice coverage causes warming because more radiation is absorbed in dark water than in white ice.

Anyway, i assume you now agree with the baby steps two and three, that there is an energy balance that moves toward equilibrium, and that changing the parameters can change where that equilibrium lies?

In other words, you agree that there is a greenhouse effect as described by mainstream science and that changes in the strength of the greenhouse effect can change the temperature on earth?

Time for baby step four: do you agree that a change in the composition of gasses (like increasing CO2) in the atmosphere changes the strength of the greenhouse effect?

 

[aleCcowaN]

AGW advocacy supports socialists in their reach for control. AGW skepticism supports free marketeers in their rejection of control.

That is your local colour, which includes tons of denialism . In my country and many more the little denialism is held mainly by lefties and populists: according to them, AGW is the new business of the imperialist pigs. You have to look for cloning of the Usian culture to find something that matches your easy assertion, like a few people among the members of some evangelical confessions originated in the USA and financed from there.

 

[aleCcowaN]

"Play" is unfair. I did not introduce the terms "fundamental".I did not introduce "basic" (Iirc).Now we have three meanings of "basic physics", seems to me: 1) the conceptually minimal axiomatization, 2) 19th century classical mechanics and thermodynamics, and 3) whatever supports the larger theory (the basic assumptions of that larger theory). Dyson and Motl certainly understand #1, 2. I don't have a clue about quantum mechanics or operator theory. #3 is pretty close to a requirement that skeptics accept your premises. Dunno 'bout "understand",

Now you are throwing more definitions of "basic" (tailored ones) and zero definitions of physics.

Believe me, we got it. You can manipulate words, but concepts it doesn't look you can.

 

[uke2se]

AGW advocacy supports socialists in their reach for control. AGW skepticism supports free marketeers in their rejection of control.

This is a pretty accurate description of the conspiracy theory that is at the root of AGW denial. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the need for the science to be a hoax in order to maintain beliefs that would be untenable in a world with AGW. It's basically the same irrationality we see with twoofers and holocaust deniers.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

This is a pretty accurate description of the conspiracy theory that is at the root of AGW denial. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the need for the science to be a hoax in order to maintain beliefs that would be untenable in a world with AGW. It's basically the same irrationality we see with twoofers and holocaust deniers.

True. It's also a pretty accurate description of the conspiracy theory that is at the root of AGW defense. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the need for the science statistical criticisms to be a hoax in order to maintain beliefs that would be untenable in a world without AGW. It's basically the same irrationality we see with twoofers and holocaust deniers.
Right.

 

[metzomagic]

M&Ms principal error seems to be cherry-picking data. They deliberately chose 100 series with the most pronounced HSI.

Tamino did a fairly comprehensive rebuttal here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

No, that's only half of what McIntyre did. Cherry-picking the top 1% of results is bad enough in itself, but in order to produce those hockey stick-shaped PC1s that he cherry-picked from, he used MBH's NOAMER 1400 series (a data set of 70 tree ring chronologies from 1400 - 1980) that had climate signal in them (of course). He injected so called "trendless persistent red noise" (McIntyre's own terminology, not used by anyone else) into them by running 10,000 simulations.

The trouble is, he used the ARFIMA algorithm to generate the noise, and this algorithm has *no basis in nature*. Because it has an approximate de-correlation time of 19 years (instead of a more realistic de-correlation time of 1.5 to 3 years accepted by paleoclimatologists to simulate non-climatic effects on trees that occur in nature), it distorted most of the simulation runs beyond all recognition. So basically what McIntyre did was a deliberate stitch-up of Mann that had no scientific underpinnings. Normally his raison d'etre is to get rid of the hockey stick no matter what it takes. In this instance, the idea was to make hockey sticks seemingly appear out of nowhere by falsely laying the blame on Mann's PCA method, when in fact it was an artefact of McIntyre's manipulation of the data.

You really need to read Deep Climate's analysis of McIntyre's blatantly disingenuous work. I can't explain it all in a few short paragraphs. Anyway, yeah, tamino is always spot on. But it's Deep Climate's more detailed analysis of a specific McIntyre work product that people should read. The guy is a loose cannon.

 

[CapelDodger]

True. It's also a pretty accurate description of the conspiracy theory that is at the root of AGW defense. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the need for the science statistical criticisms to be a hoax in order to maintain beliefs that would be untenable in a world without AGW. It's basically the same irrationality we see with twoofers and holocaust deniers.
Right.

The statistical criticisms can be shown to be invalid, and in the case of McIntyre deliberately manipulated to give a false impression to the unwary. AGW doesn't need defending : it's happening all around you every day. Perhaps ten or fifteen years ago it wasn't unequivocally evident but it certainly is now. Meanwhile McIntyre continues to gnaw away on Mann et al from 1998 while taking every oppportunity to slander honest scientists such as Mann and Briffa, and you seem to feel he's doing something useful by that.

Perhaps for you he is, if the world as it actually is is incompatible with your belief system, and I get the impression that it is. What do you mean by "untenable beliefs" as you use it here? An example or two would be appreciated (al least by me).

For instance, do you regard it as an untenable belief that AGW leads to the loss of Arctic sea-ice? Or that it leads to glacier retreat? That it leads to more extremes of weather? That it leads to the expansion of the Hadley Cells? That it causes premature balding?

 

[BenBurch]

You mean, where marine organisms once made shells from calcium carbonate, they now use titanium?

You obviously didn't know what happens, so I tried to educate you. Like so many before in this thread, I appear to have failed.

Malcolm,

He's a marine biologist.

-Ben

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Malcolm,

He's a marine biologist.

-Ben

 

[CapelDodger]

The trouble is, he used the ARFIMA algorithm to generate the noise, and this algorithm has *no basis in nature*. Because it has an approximate de-correlation time of 19 years (instead of a more realistic de-correlation time of 1.5 to 3 years accepted by paleoclimatologists to simulate non-climatic effects on trees that occur in nature), it distorted most of the simulation runs beyond all recognition. So basically what McIntyre did was a deliberate stitch-up of Mann that had no scientific underpinnings.

Quite impressive for someone who'd so recently cracked his first statistics text-book, but he did have McKitrick (of "we have entered a long-term cooling phase" fame) to help him.

Normally his raison d'etre is to get rid of the hockey stick no matter what it takes. In this instance, the idea was to make hockey sticks seemingly appear out of nowhere by falsely laying the blame on Mann's PCA method, when in fact it was an artefact of McIntyre's manipulation of the data.

To expand on that a little (for those who might need it), red noise is random (it can go either way when it occurs) and fades over time. In a random binary series (heads/tails, for instance, or warmer/cooler) there can be quite long sequences of the same type. Where the noise persists for a while these can pile up on each other and lead to peaks. Run the sequence long enough with a long enough persistence and you will eventually get peaks (warm and cold in this particular case). Then things gradually return to average.

This is what McIntyre exploited. He ran many series then rejected the ones without a good peak, reversed the ones with cold peaks, and then chopped them off at the peak (concealing the fact that they are peaks, not a continuing upward slope the way AGW is). Job done.

(My psychic lobe is picking up someone thinking "Ad hominem!" as they read this post. Can't imagine who it is.)

You really need to read Deep Climate's analysis of McIntyre's blatantly disingenuous work.

John Mashey's forensic skills are legendary, and of course his work is entirely documented and sourced from the public domain (so it's not just a matter of opinion or authority).