The Sound Of Settled Science

68 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

1. Dr. D: You raise a number of points, answering them in order:
   how do you know they are not saturated? CO2 saturation follows a typical saturation model. At certain frequencies you have maximum absorption, but this trails off to either side. Where you have maximum absorption it will be saturated, but the sides will not be. For atmospheric pressure at 300 ppm CO2, for the 15 micron band, the absorption frequency will be saturated between about 13.5 and 17 microns. Outside this it is not. The effect is minor compared to the main absorption – that is why doubling CO2 will only raise temperature by 1 to 2 degrees C.
   There is still a limit to the amount of heat the Earth emits and therefore a limit to the amount that CO2 can absorb We have not reached the limit yet.
   this of course assumes that solar and geothermal outputs are constant or negligible — but then if they are not then “global warming” or cooling likely has little to do with human activity First, that statement is not logically correct. There could be effects from solar, geothermal and anthropogenic. However we have not seen any changes in solar or geothermal that could account for recent rises.
   Your comments about “re-absoprtion and re-radiation” are not relevant to my argument.
   Do you have an example of the VOC that the modelers know nothing about?
   Finally, I disagree with your 0.82K number. Quoting from the Summary for WG1 Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade);
   Regards,
   John
   

2. Dr. D: You raise a number of points, answering them in order:
   how do you know they are not saturated? CO2 saturation follows a typical saturation model. At certain frequencies you have maximum absorption, but this trails off to either side. Where you have maximum absorption it will be saturated, but the sides will not be. For atmospheric pressure at 300 ppm CO2, for the 15 micron band, the absorption frequency will be saturated between about 13.5 and 17 microns. Outside this it is not. The effect is minor compared to the main absorption – that is why doubling CO2 will only raise temperature by 1 to 2 degrees C.
   There is still a limit to the amount of heat the Earth emits and therefore a limit to the amount that CO2 can absorb We have not reached the limit yet.
   this of course assumes that solar and geothermal outputs are constant or negligible — but then if they are not then “global warming” or cooling likely has little to do with human activity First, that statement is not logically correct. There could be effects from solar, geothermal and anthropogenic. However we have not seen any changes in solar or geothermal that could account for recent rises.
   Your comments about “re-absoprtion and re-radiation” are not relevant to my argument.
   Do you have an example of the VOC that the modelers know nothing about?
   Finally, I disagree with your 0.82K number. Quoting from the Summary for WG1 Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 oC per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 oC per decade);
   Regards,
   John
   

3. et: You are bringing up my discussions with Brian as an example of my being rebutted? Are you sure you have the right name this time? The only time I did not show what was wrong with his arguments was the last time when the thread was closed for comments. However, perhaps you could fill in for him now?
   He stated that “As for point 3, I don’t buy into that either. CO2 is heavy. From space heating and transportation it starts out close to the ground in any case.” Do you think this is a valid point?

4. This still won’t let me post with any links. SO let me say that links are available upon request.
   Bryceman: In regards to your first point, I am not sure you understood what I was saying. I said that the recent increase is due to anthropogenic sources. Your reply seemed to talk about both increase and the effect of this increase. I will only talk about the increase here and leave the effect for the next part.
   In regards to the increase in CO2, there are several lines of arguments that indicate the source is anthropogenic. For example the carbon isotope ratios give an indication of the age of the carbon and current measurements show that the average age is increasing (which is what you would see if the increase in carbon came from sources millions of years old).
   In addition you can actually calculate the anthropogenic content. Get the numbers on annual consumption of fossil fuels. Calculate the CO2 released from the burning of these. We can walk through the numbers if you like.
   In regards to your second point, you are correct in the effects of adding more CO2 (i.e. as you add more the effects become less). This is well known and acknowledged by all climatologists I have read. A good look at the issue can be found here.
   link deleted
   Finally in regards to Bob Carter, I watched the first clip and I found it very entertaining – Dr. Carter is a good speaker. But one of his claims is that in the last 10 years there has been no warming. This claim has been examined in the past. I don’t know if he used the same dataset for his presentation, but he made the same pitch.
   link deleted
   So, what is my point – I do not think the counter to the “skeptic” arguments is that Leonardo believes Al Gore, but in fact the counter is based on physics, analysis and looking at the data.
   Regards,
   John

5. John Cross:
   So if Dr. Carter is wrong on his “…no warming in the last ten years…” pitch, how about the last 6 years? Warming or not John?
   And please, no wishy washy politician type deflections like: “…6 years isn’t long enough to capture a trend change…etc. etc. etc….” Just answer the question.
   Regards, BRK

6. Brian: Warming!! To calculate it I went to the GISS Global Mean Monthly Land-Ocean data set. I used the end points of November 2007 (latest information they have) and counted back 6 years to December 2001.
   The trend is +0.508, or about 0.05C/decade.
   Now, let me ask you the same question that I asked et, do you think that your point number 3 is a valid point? If you do, please indicate what parameters you used in the Brigg’s equation.
   Regards,
   John

7. John Cross:
   Ah, the old friend, she won’t let you down will she? The GISS dataset, warm as ever, not like the cool and unfriendly HADCRUT3 dataset eh John? Never mind that the lower troposphere temperatures correlate better with the HADCRUT3 dataset, we’ve got arguments to win, minds to win over.
   By the way John, if the 21st century is to warm at the rate predicted in IPCC 4AR, what would the decadal trend have to average? Let our audience in on where this 0.05C/decade stacks up compared to where the IPCC predict it should be. I mean are we ahead of schedule or behind schedule? By my math the current rate is between 1/3 and 1/4 of the predicted rate needed for the LOW end of IPCC projections, but am I wrong or not?
   And try this experiment John. Finish off December 2007 with say an guesstimated anomaly of plus 0.4, which seems reasonable in light of the monster La Nina out there now. Likewise, move the start of your analysis period ahead one month to January 2002.
   What happens to your trend John? The audience waits with bated breath.
   Regards, BRK

8. John,
   Here is a rather small list of VOC’s — please explain to me what modelers take their properties into account:
   monoterpenes: carvone, thujone, geraniol, isopinocamphene, linalool, …. (several hundreds more)
   natural isothiocyanates: methy-, propyl-, butyl-, ally-, benzyl-, phenethylisothiocyanate, …. (several hundred more)
   natural alcohols: methanol, ethanol, propanol, butanol, pentanol, pentenols, hexanol, hexenols, benzyl alcohol…. (lots more)
   natural aldehydes and ketones: acetaldehyde, butanone, nonanone …. (several hundrededs more)
   I could keep going (natural hydrocarbons, aromatics, ethers, amines etc) but I think you should get the picture.
   Your belief that geothermal and solar variability have an insignificant effect on global climate while CO2 is the main driver is simply that – a belief or a tenet of faith. You seem to bend facts to fit your beliefs, but so far there has been no corroboration for the theory of AGW.
   Also, you may disagree with the o.82 number, but please don’t attribute it to me, it’s not my number its the IPCC’s, in 1992 — check it out– J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPPC
   Scientific Assessment – Report Prepared for IPCC by Working Group I (University
   Press, Cambridge, 1992)
   I don’t understand your arguments about saturation effects — they don’t make any sense.

9. You are not the only one, Old Chemist. I would suspect JC also 🙂

10. Brian: As I have said before, I like the GISS since it has larger pole coverage than the HAD. However I am amused by the irony of you changing the goal posts then saying that I have “minds to win over”.
    In regards to how it compares to the IPCC estimate, I confess I do not know what the estimate is for the period 2000 – 2010. However you seem to and I would be glad to learn.
    As for your experiment, if I do what you ask, I still get a positive slope, however I am sure that if you keep making up numbers you will eventually get a result you like.
    And speaking of waiting with bated breath, are you able to back up your statement about CO2 being heavy and staying near the ground?
    Regards,
    John

11. Old Chemist: I know that some of theVOC that you mention are considered by the IPCC. As for the others, I don’t know. The concentration is so small that I suspect the effect is small.
    However you are engaged in building strawmen. I never said or implied that ”solar variability have an insignificant effect”. Solar variation is probably the strongest driver of climate, but the evidence we currently have says that there has been no significant increases in solar activity recently.
    In regards to the 0.82 value, again I can not find it in the IPCC. You quoted a reference, but from the spelling error (IPPC) I suspect that you just copied it from Gerlich’s paper without checking if he was correct. As I said, the report claims a warming rate of 0.2 to 0.5C.
    I don’t understand your arguments about saturation effects — they don’t make any sense. And I hadn’t even gotten to pressure broadening yet.
    Regards,
    John

12. Comment by John Cross blocked. [unkill]​[show comment]
    Comment by John Cross blocked. [unkill]​[show comment]
    Same old, same old.

13. John Cross:
    It’s not looking too good for you and the rest of the AGW believers. With the current trends in progress, how long do you think you can cling to the idea that it is still warming? In light of the reduced expectations evident in the Met Office prediction for 2008, do you really think even the GISS dataset will show warming much longer? And after the GISS turns it’s back on you, what have you got left? The surface temperatures according to HADCRUT3, the lower troposphere, the middle troposphere, and ocean deeps left you a while ago. And CO2 growth is shrinking, backing up the cooling oceans data (enhanced sink performance).
    Since you are apparently too shy to discuss the changes in your trend that would result from moving the analysis window ahead one month, I’ll fill the audience in. That slight change drops your “warming!!” trend in half, and also shows how shaky the last friendly number the AGW believers have really is. And dropping the trend in half means it is now only about 1/8 of the predicted average decadal trend of the LOW end of the IPCC surface temperature increase for this century.
    Putting 2 exclamation points after warming isn’t going to make it so. The weight of empirical evidence clearly shows that at this point in time it is not.
    But let’s leave all this depressing cooling talk behind John. Let’s talk about something really important like why my CO2 stays close to the ground in Siberia theory is wrong.
    Regards, BRK

14. Brian: There is no looking good or bad, there is only data and what it means. If at some point it shows significant cooling then it shows cooling.
    In regards to your Russian example, what conditions do you assume that would keep all the CO2 close to the ground at all times (at least until it has all been removed)?
    Regards,
    John

15. John Cross:
    So are you ready to admit there has been no significant warming since 2002?
    Regards, BRK

16. Brian: I am not prepared to admit anything since that would imply that I was trying to hide something. If you want me to agree with you, point to the data and state your conclusions and I will consider it to see if I agree or not. I have no doubt you can pick a data set and pick some endpoints and it will produce a cooling trend and I am happy to agree with the data.
    I have no vested interest in whether temperatures are going up or down apart from the hope that I am able to leave my children better off than I was/am.
    I notice that you have avoided my question about your Russian hypothesis yet again.
    Regards,
    John

17. John Cross:
    The stages of loss are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Which one are you at John?
    As for the datasets that indicate cooling let’s try 2. The last 6 years of the monthly RSS TLT (MSU lower troposphere) is one. And the other is an indirect proxy for ocean cooling, the growth rate of CO2 on a month minus 12 months ago increment basis (i.e. May 2002 – May 2001 etc.), using the Mauna Loa monthly data set, again over the last 6 years.
    Let’s cheer you up a bit John, and switch the topic to Siberian plants. My logic is that say a Siberian pulp plant (with associated town/transportation system) emits most of its CO2 close to the ground, so that’s where the CO2 stays, particularly in the cooler seasons (spring fall) when convection in the high latitudes is not so vigorous, but trees are still actively growing. Tell me why I’m wrong.
    Regards, BRK

18. Brian: I have no problem agreeing that there is a cooling trend in the last 6 years of MSU data. Your ocean temperature proxy is interesting, but is not supported by actual temperature data. I feel no loss and I am not sad – I only follow where the data leads. However your recent posts indicate that in fact you are taking an emotional stand as evidenced by your increasing reliance on rhetoric. While this can seem satisfying, it never makes for a strong argument. Stick to the facts and you will do better.
    In regards to the Russian refinery / pulp mill, what do you assume the stack height is and what do you assume the temperature of the plume is?
    Regards,
    John