A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 9:18 PM GMT on June 21, 2011

Share this Blog
4
+

A Science-Organized Community: Organizing U.S. Climate Modeling (3)

In the previous entry I set out the need of a scientific organization; that is, an organization that is designed and run to honor the tenets of the scientific method. This stands in contrast to, say, a laboratory or a center that is populated by scientists carrying out a multitude of projects, each following the scientific method. One motivation for the scientific organization is the steady stream of reports from the past two decades calling for better integration of U.S. climate activities to provide predictions to meet societal needs. At the foundation of my argument is that the way we teach, fund and reward scientific investigation has been, traditionally, fragmenting. Without addressing this underlying fragmentation, there are high barriers to achieving the needed integration. (see, Something New in the Past Decade?, The Scientific Organization, High-end Climate Science).

What does it take for an organization to adhere to the scientific method? Ultimately, I will arrive at the conclusion that it takes a diligence of management and governance, but for this entry I will continue to focus on the elements of the scientific method, and specifically the development of strategies to evaluate and validate collected, rather than individual, results.

In May I attended a seminar by David Stainforth. Stainforth is one of the principles in the community project climateprediction.net. From their website, “Climateprediction.net is a distributed computing project to produce predictions of the Earth's climate up to 2100 and to test the accuracy of climate models.” In this project people download a climate model and run the model on their personal computers, then the results are communicated back to data center where they are analyzed in concert with results from many other people.

This is one example of community science or citizen science. Other citizen science programs are Project Budburst and the Globe Program. There are a number of reasons for projects like this. One of the reasons is to extend the reach of observations. In Project Budburst people across the U.S. observe the onset of spring as indicated by different plants – when do leaves and blossoms emerge? A scientific motivation for doing this is to increase the number observations to try to assure that the Earth's variability is adequately observed – to develop statistical significance. In these citizen science programs people are taught how to observe - a protocol is developed.

Education – that is another goal of these citizen science activities, education about the scientific method. In order to follow the scientific process, we need to know the characteristics of the observations. If, as in Project Budburst, we are looking for the onset of leafing, then we need to make sure that the tree is not sitting next to a warm building or in the building’s atrium. Perhaps, there is a requirement of a measurement, for example, that the buds on a particular type of tree have expanded to a certain size or burst in some discernible way. Quantitative measurement and adherence of practices of measurement are at the foundation of developing a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment is one where we try to investigate only one thing at a time; this is a difficult task in climate science. If we are not careful about our observations and the design of our experiments, then it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to evaluate our hypotheses and arrive at conclusions. And the ability to test hypotheses is fundamental to the scientific method. Design, observations, hypothesis, evaluation, validation – in a scientific organization these things need to be done by the organization, not each individual.

Let’s return to climateprediction.net. A major goal is to obtain a lot of simulations from climate models to examine the range of variability that we might expect in 2100. The strategy is to place relatively simple models in the hands of a whole lot of people. With this strategy it is possible to do many more experiments than say one scientist or even a small team of scientists can do. Many 100,000s of simulations have been completed.

One of the many challenges faced in the model-based experiments is how to manage the model simulations to provide controlled experiments. If you think about a climate model as a whole, then there are a number of things that can be changed. We can change something “inside” of the model, for example, we can change how rough we estimate the Earth’s surface to be – maybe grassland versus forest. We can change something “outside” of the model - the energy balance, perhaps, some estimate of how the Sun varies or how carbon dioxide will change. And, still “outside” the model, we can change the details of what the climate looks like when the model simulation is started – do we start it with January 2003 data or July 2007? When you download a model from climateprediction.net, it has a unique set of these parameters. If you do a second experiment, this will also have a unique set of parameters. Managing these model configurations and documenting this information allows, well, 100000s of simulations to be run, with a systematic exploration of model variability. Experiment strategy is explained here.

What impressed me about climateprediction.net is the ability to design and execute a volunteer organization that allows rigorous investigation with of a group of thousands of people on thousands of different computers distributed all over the globe. Protocols have been set up to verify that the results are what they should be; there is confidence in the accuracy of the information collected. Here is an example where scientists are able to define an organization where the scientific method permeates the organization. Is this proof that a formalized scientific organization is possible? What are the attributes that contribute to the success of a project like climateprediction.net? Are they relevant to a U.S. climate laboratory?

Bringing this back to the scale of U.S. climate activities – in 2008 there was a Policy Forum in Science Magazine by Mark Schaefer, Jim Baker and a distinguished number of co-authors. All of these co-authors had worked at high levels in the government, and they all struggled with the desire and need to integrate U.S. climate activities. Based on their experience they posed an Earth System Science Agency made from a combined USGS and NOAA. In their article they pointed out: “The synergies among our research and monitoring programs, both space- and ground-based, are not being exploited effectively because they are not planned and implemented in an integrated fashion. Our problems include inadequate organizational structure, ineffective interagency collaboration, declines in funding, and blurred authority for program planning and implementation.” Planning and implementation in an integrated fashion, I will add – consistent with the scientific method – that is what is needed for a successful scientific investigation by an individual; it is needed to make climateprediction.net substantive; it is needed for any climate organization that is expected, as a whole, to provide integrated climate information.

r




Figure 1: Location of participants in climateprediction.net. From the BBC, a sponsor of the experiment.


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 734 - 684

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

734. Ossqss
2:21 AM GMT on July 04, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


True! This just accounts for changes in GCC and GHGs. It does not account for changes in Solar Acitivty, possible decadal volcanic influences, cyclical oceanic oscillations, and climate feedbacks.

This just really shows you how really small of a player CO2 and GHGs play on Earth.


Well stated! Thanks for your additional analysis work also!

I will check the numbers you know :)

Happy Holiday all ~~ L8R >>>>
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
733. Snowlover123
2:04 AM GMT on July 04, 2011
Well, I am heading out.

Good Night, and Happy Early 4th of July :)
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
732. Snowlover123
2:03 AM GMT on July 04, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:


Exactly, however this represents a small point of information in the complex world that we live in today.


True! This just accounts for changes in GCC and GHGs. It does not account for changes in Solar Acitivty, possible decadal volcanic influences, cyclical oceanic oscillations, and climate feedbacks.

This just really shows you how really small of a player CO2 and GHGs play on Earth.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
731. Snowlover123
1:55 AM GMT on July 04, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:




Chief among those is the mistaken belief that all OLR is the same. Indeed, numerous studies have verified that, as predicted by climate scientists, over the past several decades there has been a consistent drop in OLR at exactly the wavelength bands that GHGs such as CO2 and methane absorb energy.


Why are you looking at only OLR in the CO2 spectrum? As you probably know, the CO2 Spectrum does not consist of the entire Infared Spectrum. It only consists of a small portion of it.

Thus, if Greenhouse Gases were the cause of the late-20th Century warming, we would notice a decrease of overall OLR, since the decrease in OLR that GHGs would produce would overwhelm any other change in OLR from any other forcing.

Instead, we note an increase in overall OLR. This indicates that something else is completely overwhelming the CO2 forcing.



OLR has been increasing on the order of 11 w/m^2 in the last three decades or so. This is consistent with a decrease in OLR, since less Cloud Cover means that more OLR can escape. Since OLR has increased, we can then assume that the warming is continuing, due to a change in ISR. This is also consistent with Cloud Changes, since less Cloud Cover, means that more ISR can reach Earth's surface. Since Cloud Cover reflects more energy than it traps energy, if all clouds were to be removed, an extra 17 w/m^2 would be gained in Earth's Energy Budget.

This also does not factor in changes in UV Radiation from Solar Activity, which as a new study shows, has a very strong correlation to temperatures.

Middle atmosphere temperature trend and solar cycle revealed by long-term Rayleigh lidar observations
Key Points


Quote:

Tao Li
School of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China, State Key Laboratory of Space Weather, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Thierry Leblanc
Table Mountain Facility, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Wrightwood, California, USA

I. Stuart McDermid
Table Mountain Facility, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Wrightwood, California, USA

Philippe Keckhut
Laboratoire Atmosphères, Milieux, Observations Spatiales, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, Guyancourt, France

Alain Hauchecorne
Laboratoire Atmosphères, Milieux, Observations Spatiales, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, Guyancourt, France

Xiankang Dou
School of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China

The long-term temperature profile data sets obtained by Rayleigh lidars at three different northern latitudes within the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change were used to derive the middle atmosphere temperature trend and response to the 11 year solar cycle. The lidars were located at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii (MLO, 19.5°N); the Table Mountain Facility, California (TMF, 34.4°N); and the Observatoire de Haute Provence, France (OHP, 43.9°N). A stratospheric cooling trend of 2–3 K/decade was found for both TMF and OHP, and a trend of ≤0.5 ± 0.5 K/decade was found at MLO. In the mesosphere, the trend at TMF (3–4 K/decade) was much larger than that at both OHP and MLO (<1 K/decade). The lidar trends agree well with earlier satellite and rocketsonde trends in the stratosphere, but a substantial discrepancy was found in the mesosphere. The cooling trend in the upper stratosphere at OHP during 1981–1994 (∼2–3 K/decade) was much larger than that during 1995–2009 (≤0.8 K/decade), coincident with the slightly increasing upper stratospheric ozone density after 1995. Significant temperature response to the 11 year solar cycle was found. The correlation was positive in both the stratosphere and mesosphere at MLO and TMF. At OHP a wintertime negative response in the upper stratosphere and a positive response in the middle mesosphere were observed during 1981–1994, but the opposite behavior was found during 1995–2009. This behavior may not be a direct solar cycle response at all but is likely related to an apparent response to decadal variability (e.g., volcanoes, modulated random occurrence of sudden stratospheric warmings) that is more complex.

-------

Quoting Neapolitan:



Another wrong assumption is that all ISR remains in the atmosphere and is therefore subject to emission as OLR. Not so. When there's more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat--which is precisely what's happening, as shown in the following graphs:



Correct. If the Energy In is greater than the Energy Out, the Planet will warm.

If the cause of the warming were GHGs, then we would notice a decrease in OLR, which would create warming, since there is no change in the ISR.

However, with Cloud Cover, it increases the amount of OLR, but substantially increases the amount of ISR, meaning that more Energy is coming in than Energy is going out, creating a 17 w/m^2 Energy Imbalance if all clouds were to be removed.

Therefore, since overall OLR has increased, we can then conclude that the late 20th-Century Global Warming has been driven by changes in Cloud Cover, since if OLR were to increase, if ISR did not change, increasing OLR would produce cooling. Decreasing Cloud Cover accounts for an increase in ISR, which is why it is most likely driving late-20th Century Global Warming.

The graphs that you have posted from our favorite cartoonist's blog, disagree with actual data and analyses from climatologists.

This is an excellent analysis from Dr. Pielke Sr. which correctly shows, that there has been no gain in OHC since 2003, when GCC flatlined.

Quote:

It has now been at least since 2003 that there has not be significant heating of the upper ocean.

In a post on my weblog on August 25 2008, Josh Willis wrote

“I do agree with you that several years of zero or little radiative imbalance poses some very difficult questions for the modeling community. But I do not think it is grounds for outright rejection of all model results.”
Joules resulting from a positive radiative imbalance must continue to be accumulated in order for global warming to occur. In the last 7 1/2 years there has been an absence of this heating. An important research question is how many more years of this lack of agreement with the GISS model (and other model) predictions must occur before there is wide recognition that the IPCC models have failed as skillful predictions of the effect of the radiative forcing of anthropogenic inputs of greenhouse gases and aerosols.

The use of the ocean heat content change as the most appropriate metric to diagnose global warming was reported in
Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, J. Wang, T.L. Delworth, K.W. Dixon, and A.J. Broccoli, 2001: Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system. Science, 292, 267-269

and

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.

In a 2008 Climate Science weblog

Comparison of Model and Observations Of Upper Ocean Heat Content,

I wrote

“The conclusion in Hansen et al. 2005 that the “Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± Watts per meter squared more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space” is well supported by their modeling results for the ten years or so ending in 2003.”

With respect to the heating rate, in the paper

Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev, 2005: Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435, doi:10.1126/science.1110252,

they wrote

“Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.”

See also the response by Jim Hansen to a comment by Christy and Pielke Sr [which Science refused to publish], where Hansen wrote me with respect to their GISS model predictions that

“Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean.”

He further writes

“The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.”

Thus, the best estimate value of 0.60 Watts per meter squared given in Hansen et al can be used, as a conservative value, to calculate the heat change in Joules that should be expected in the upper ocean data from 2003 to the present.

The observed best estimates of the heating and the Hansen et al prediction in Joules in the upper 700m of the ocean are given below:

OBSERVED BEST ESTIMATE OF ACCUMULATION Of JOULES [assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002].

2003 ~0 Joules
2004 ~0 Joules
2005 ~0 Joules
2006 ~0 Joules
2007 ~0 Joules
2008 ~0 Joules
2009 ~0 Joules
2010 ~0 Joules
2011 ~0 Joules through May 2011
2012 —–

HANSEN PREDICTION OF The ACCUMULATION OF JOULES [ at a rate of 0.60 Watts per meter squared] assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002] [corrected 6/13/2011 from input from Bob Tilsdale].

2003 ~0.67* 10** 22 Joules
2004 ~1.34* 10** 22 Joules
2005 ~2.01 * 10** 22 Joules
2006 ~2.68 * 10** 22 Joules
2007 ~3.35 * 10** 22 Joules
2008 ~4.02 * 10** 22 Joules
2009 ~4.69 * 10** 22 Joules
2010 ~5.36 * 10** 22 Joules
2011 ~6.03* 10** 22 Joules
2012 ~6.70* 10** 22 Joules

Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should have been approximately 5.36 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2010 than were present at the beginning of 2003.

For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 6.7 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next 1 1/2 years. This requires a heating rate over the next 1 1/2 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean corresponding to a radiative imbalance of ~4 Watts per square meter.

------------

Quoting Neapolitan:


Yet another is that you may be misreading the graph you posted; the first one doesn't show a "substantial" increase in OLR since 1979 (the top red graph). There has, however, been a substantial increase in temperature anomalies (bottom blue graph). And there doesn't seem to be a correlation between the two, other than a definite increase in surface air temp anomalies despite an ever-so-slight increase in OLR at all wavelengths.


Yes, the increase can be a bit decieving, since OLR is in increments of 10 w/m^2. If the increments were in 1 w/m^2, we would notice a sharp increase, but the increase is much more shallow, since the graph uses increments of 10 w/m^2.

And interestingly, you claim that Cloud Cover doesn't have a correlation with temperatures, when Tropical Cloud Cover, inverted, overlayed on top of HadCrut data, shows a very clear correlation. Cloud Cover changes generally come before the temperature changes, (however, ENSO also has some impact on Cloud Cover, so it is not perfect,) but a very clear correlation, nonetheless.



So Nea, if Carbon Dioxide is the cause of the late-20th Century Global Warming, why has temperature ignored the continued increase in Carbon Dioxide, and has followed the flatline in Cloud Cover in this past decade?

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
730. Ossqss
1:40 AM GMT on July 04, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:


Thank you! :)

Calculations involving CO2 only, would be even less than with all GHGs.

So first we multiply the 1.4 w/m^2 104 year radiative forcing of CO2 by .2 (since then we would get the radiative forcing for just the 21 year period.)

For this 21 year period, CO2 has contributed to roughly .28 w/m^2. Divide that by 7 w/m^2, and Carbon Dioxide has contributed to roughly 4%, (.014) Degrees C to the current warming! (This is also assuming that there are no climate feedbacks. Since there are feedbacks, and we know that most of them are negative, we can assume that the number is likely even smaller.



Exactly, however this represents a small point of information in the complex world that we live in today.

When I try to assess things in an overall manner, I find very little information on deep ocean currents and even the role of cosmic rays and ion-induced nucleation as it relates to cloud formation. That is to say nothing with respect to land use changes, damming rivers, levees, and those mysterious large atmospheric oscillation interactions at minimum :)

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
729. Snowlover123
1:25 AM GMT on July 04, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:


726. Snowlover123

Nicely done. Have you looked at the delta between doing the calculations with and without water vapor as part of the GHG's?


Thank you! :)

Calculations involving CO2 only, would be even less than with all GHGs.

So first we multiply the 1.4 w/m^2 104 year radiative forcing of CO2 by .2 (since then we would get the radiative forcing for just the 21 year period.)

For this 21 year period, CO2 has contributed to roughly .28 w/m^2. Divide that by 7 w/m^2, and Carbon Dioxide has contributed to roughly 4%, (.014) Degrees C to the current warming! (This is also assuming that there are no climate feedbacks. Since there are feedbacks, and we know that most of them are negative, we can assume that the number is likely even smaller.

Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
728. Ossqss
1:16 AM GMT on July 04, 2011


726. Snowlover123

Nicely done. Have you looked at the delta between doing the calculations with and without water vapor as part of the GHG's?
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
727. Neapolitan
1:00 AM GMT on July 04, 2011
Quoting Snowlover123:
I'm back!

I haven't really had a chance to post here, since I have been involved in a heated debate on another forum.

I did an analysis on why Global Warming is natural on one of my posts on that forum, and I thought that I would re-post it here, for discussion.

So, here we go, fact by fact.

To determine what is the cause of the warming from 1979 to now, you need to know a couple of these facts.

In order for an object to maintain constant temperature, the energy coming in must equal the energy coming out. This is a basic principle.

The Energy leaving Earth is called the Outgoing Longwave Radiation, or (OLR).

The Energy reaching Earth from the Sun is called the Incoming Shortwave Radiation, or (ISR).

These are basic facts.

If Carbon Dioxide were to be the driver of the Climate, you would notice a decrease in Outgoing Longwave Radiation since 1979, since increased amounts of Carbon Dioxide would lower the energy leaving Earth, and as a result, Earth would warm. (LINK)

The Water Vapour Feedback from increased CO2 would create even more OLR to be reduced at the tropics, since that is where the water is the hottest, and as a result, that is where the most vaporization would occur. This is a basic principle.

But contrary to this hypothesis, since 1979, the OLR has increased quite substantially since 1979.



If you do not believe the graph, you can check the raw data for yourself, here: (LINK)

So why has OLR increased instead of decreased? This is not consistent with the AGW Theory as I have already shown.

This means that something more powerful is impacting the OLR, since it is increasing, instead of decreasing.

Cloud Cover has also been decreasing.



This would allow for more OLR to escape, since Less Global Cloud Cover, (GCC) means more energy can escape to space. This is a basic principle.

However, less Cloud Cover would also mean that more incoming energy can also reach the Lower Troposphere, or (LT). This is also a basic principle.

Since OLR has increased, we can then conclude that the warming has been caused by a change in the ISR, which fits perfectly with the Cloud Theory.

Clouds reflect more ISR than they trap OLR, so a decrease in Cloud Cover would produce warming due to an increase in ISR.

Quote:


The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).



So since OLR has been increasing, contrary to the AGW theory that it should decrease, we can then conclude that the warming was caused by an increase in ISR, which is completely consistent with the Cloud Theory.

So, using the analysis above, we can conclude that Clouds have a much more significant impact on the climate, than increasing CO2. But how much?

A peer-reviewed paper, published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, shows that changes in Cloud Cover over a 21 year period, have three times the effect than what all GHGs have over a 104 year period.


Quote:
...available BSRN data (1992–2001), the overall
change observed at eight individual sites, amounts
to 6
:6W=m2. Although constructing a global mean
from only eight stations is a very crude approximation,
the changes measured at the surface within the
BSRN network are quantitatively in line with the
change in the net solar fluxes at the top of the
atmosphere estimated by the earthshine method

ð6:8W=m2Þ.


The effect that Clouds have had over a 21 year period was 7 w/m^2. The effect that GHGs combined have when doubled, (which is roughly a 104 year period is 2.3 w/m^2.

Quote:

The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m–2.--------

To get the Forcing that GHGs had for this 21 Year Period, we can set up a proportion comparing GHGs to the time of duration.

GHG Forcing for 21 Years 21
_______________________ = _______________

GHG Forcing for 104 Years 104

X 21
_______________ = _________________

2.3 104

Cross Multiply

48.3=104X

X= .46 w/m^2.

GHGs have had .46 w/m^2 of a forcing in this 21 year period.

To find how much of the warming they have caused, we divide .46 by 7, which is the amount of extra additional energy decreased clouds have allowed to filter down to Earth's surface.

GHGs could have contributed to 6% of the warming observed since 1979.

The warming since 1979 was .35 Degrees C. Multiply that by .06, and the maximum amount of warming that GHGs could have possibly caused is .02 Degrees C.


While I appreciate the work that went into your comment, I'm afraid you've made several erroneous assumptions in critical areas that seem to render your hypothesis invalid.

Chief among those is the mistaken belief that all OLR is the same. Indeed, numerous studies have verified that, as predicted by climate scientists, over the past several decades there has been a consistent drop in OLR at exactly the wavelength bands that GHGs such as CO2 and methane absorb energy. (Two such studies can be found here and here.)

Another wrong assumption is that all ISR remains in the atmosphere and is therefore subject to emission as OLR. Not so. When there's more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat--which is precisely what's happening, as shown in the following graphs:

AGW is real

AGW is real

Yet another is that you may be misreading the graph you posted; the first one doesn't show a "substantial" increase in OLR since 1979 (the top red graph). There has, however, been a substantial increase in temperature anomalies (bottom blue graph). And there doesn't seem to be a correlation between the two, other than a definite increase in surface air temp anomalies despite an ever-so-slight increase in OLR at all wavelengths.

In short, empirical evidence has proven beyond all doubt these three things:

1) CO2 concentrations are rising sharply due to human activity;

2) Less and less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths;

3) Ocean and surface temperature measurements show that the planet is continuing to accumulate heat an an increasing rate.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14494
726. Snowlover123
11:19 PM GMT on July 03, 2011
I'm back!

I haven't really had a chance to post here, since I have been involved in a heated debate on another forum.

I did an analysis on why Global Warming is natural on one of my posts on that forum, and I thought that I would re-post it here, for discussion.

So, here we go, fact by fact.

To determine what is the cause of the warming from 1979 to now, you need to know a couple of these facts.

In order for an object to maintain constant temperature, the energy coming in must equal the energy coming out. This is a basic principle.

The Energy leaving Earth is called the Outgoing Longwave Radiation, or (OLR).

The Energy reaching Earth from the Sun is called the Incoming Shortwave Radiation, or (ISR).

These are basic facts.

If Carbon Dioxide were to be the driver of the Climate, you would notice a decrease in Outgoing Longwave Radiation since 1979, since increased amounts of Carbon Dioxide would lower the energy leaving Earth, and as a result, Earth would warm. (LINK)

The Water Vapour Feedback from increased CO2 would create even more OLR to be reduced at the tropics, since that is where the water is the hottest, and as a result, that is where the most vaporization would occur. This is a basic principle.

But contrary to this hypothesis, since 1979, the OLR has increased quite substantially since 1979.



If you do not believe the graph, you can check the raw data for yourself, here: (LINK)

So why has OLR increased instead of decreased? This is not consistent with the AGW Theory as I have already shown.

This means that something more powerful is impacting the OLR, since it is increasing, instead of decreasing.

Cloud Cover has also been decreasing.



This would allow for more OLR to escape, since Less Global Cloud Cover, (GCC) means more energy can escape to space. This is a basic principle.

However, less Cloud Cover would also mean that more incoming energy can also reach the Lower Troposphere, or (LT). This is also a basic principle.

Since OLR has increased, we can then conclude that the warming has been caused by a change in the ISR, which fits perfectly with the Cloud Theory.

Clouds reflect more ISR than they trap OLR, so a decrease in Cloud Cover would produce warming due to an increase in ISR.

Quote:


The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).



So since OLR has been increasing, contrary to the AGW theory that it should decrease, we can then conclude that the warming was caused by an increase in ISR, which is completely consistent with the Cloud Theory.

So, using the analysis above, we can conclude that Clouds have a much more significant impact on the climate, than increasing CO2. But how much?

A peer-reviewed paper, published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, shows that changes in Cloud Cover over a 21 year period, have three times the effect than what all GHGs have over a 104 year period.


Quote:
...available BSRN data (1992–2001), the overall
change observed at eight individual sites, amounts
to 6
:6W=m2. Although constructing a global mean
from only eight stations is a very crude approximation,
the changes measured at the surface within the
BSRN network are quantitatively in line with the
change in the net solar fluxes at the top of the
atmosphere estimated by the earthshine method

ð6:8W=m2Þ.


The effect that Clouds have had over a 21 year period was 7 w/m^2. The effect that GHGs combined have when doubled, (which is roughly a 104 year period is 2.3 w/m^2.

Quote:

The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30 [+2.07 to +2.53] W m–2.--------

To get the Forcing that GHGs had for this 21 Year Period, we can set up a proportion comparing GHGs to the time of duration.

GHG Forcing for 21 Years 21
_______________________ = _______________

GHG Forcing for 104 Years 104

X 21
_______________ = _________________

2.3 104

Cross Multiply

48.3=104X

X= .46 w/m^2.

GHGs have had .46 w/m^2 of a forcing in this 21 year period.

To find how much of the warming they have caused, we divide .46 by 7, which is the amount of extra additional energy decreased clouds have allowed to filter down to Earth's surface.

GHGs could have contributed to 6% of the warming observed since 1979.

The warming since 1979 was .35 Degrees C. Multiply that by .06, and the maximum amount of warming that GHGs could have possibly caused is .02 Degrees C.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
725. Neapolitan
8:01 PM GMT on July 03, 2011
Warming ocean layers will undermine polar ice sheets

Warming of the ocean's subsurface layers will melt underwater portions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets faster than previously thought, according to new University of Arizona-led research. Such melting would increase the sea level more than already projected.

The research, based on 19 state-of-the-art climate models, proposes a new mechanism by which global warming will accelerate the melting of the great ice sheets during this century and the next.

The subsurface ocean layers surrounding the polar ice sheets will warm substantially as global warming progresses, the scientists found. In addition to being exposed to warming air, underwater portions of the polar ice sheets and glaciers will be bathed in warming seawater.

The subsurface ocean along the Greenland coast could increase as much as 3.6 F (2 C) by 2100.

"To my knowledge, this study is the first to quantify and compare future ocean warming around the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets using an ensemble of models," said lead author Jianjun Yin, a UA assistant professor of geosciences.

Most previous research has focused on how increases in atmospheric temperatures would affect the ice sheets, he said.

"Ocean warming is very important compared to atmospheric warming because water has a much larger heat capacity than air," Yin said. "If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water, it will disappear in just minutes."

Given a mid-level increase in greenhouse gases, the researchers found the ocean layer about 650 to 1,650 feet (200 to 500 meters) below the surface would warm, on average, about 1.8 F (1 C) by 2100.

Along the Greenland coast, that layer would warm twice as much, but along Antarctica would warm less, only 0.9 F (0.5 C).

"No one has noticed this discrepancy before – that the subsurface oceans surrounding Greenland and Antarctica warm very differently," Yin said.

Part of the warming in the North comes from the Gulf Stream carrying warm subtropical waters north. By contrast, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current blocks some of the subtropical warmth from entering the Antarctic's coastal waters.

Even so, the Antarctic ice sheet will be bathed in warming waters, the team writes.

Co-author Jonathan T. Overpeck said, "This does mean that both Greenland and Antarctica are probably going to melt faster than the scientific community previously thought."

Article...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14494
724. sirmaelstrom
4:27 AM GMT on July 03, 2011
Quoting spathy:
Thank you both.
Cosmic.
Sirmael
.
Your posts have put the best smile on my face.
Happy 4th of July.
Celebrate your freedom and the Spirit of the United States of American Citizens that helped to create it.
We are all very lucky(via yearning and persistence) to live in such a great country.
Good Night verbal partners and WU friends :O)
Spathy out.
Enjoy Americas Holiday.


A happy and safe July 4th weekend to you and everyone else here as well.

Good night all.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
722. CosmicEvents
4:08 AM GMT on July 03, 2011
Quoting spathy:


I know its hard to understand.
But I have partaken.(regretfully so)
Some among us know how to push personal buttons.
SSI and I went 19 rounds.
We finally figured out how to just restrain our knee jerk reactions.
And then???????
I dont know what that was?
Refer to above post.
All of us have something to learn.
And the unavoidable fact that the typed word can never replace the face to face understanding between humans that only want the best for humanity.
The thing that separates this blog to me is the overall level of civility/community, knowledge, humor, drama, science, etc., that happens here. We seem to have a nice blend of enough folks from all sides of the spectrum, and though there's some I vehementely disagree with and have no interest in sitting down for a beer with, there's more, like you, who I think I've gotten to know enough through the ether to say that we'd agree on much more than we'd disagree on, and we'd have a good time debating in person as we do anonomously on the blog.
Member Since: August 3, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 5814
721. sirmaelstrom
3:57 AM GMT on July 03, 2011
Quoting spathy:


I know its hard to understand.
But I have partaken.(regretfully so)
Some among us know how to push personal buttons.
SSI and I went 19 rounds.
We finally figured out how to just restrain our knee jerk reactions.
And then???????
I dont know what that was?
Refer to above post.
All of us have something to learn.
And the unavoidable fact that the typed word can never replace the face to face understanding between humans that only want the best for humanity.


I rarely ever get angry while posting. If someone is disrespectful to me (or in general), I usually simply flag the post and ignore it without comment. I've had disagreements here, but they've always seemed mostly amicable to me.

* * *

Quoting spathy:
WT Heck?
It usually takes me so long to post something and then there are other posts between my slow responses.
Now I just seem like a blog hog because the blog shut down.
You folks dont have a life do ya?


LOL. I've been here most of the night (actually mostly on Dr.Master's blog), but I've also been working on something else so sometimes I go some time between posts. I think I'm about done for the night though.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
715. sirmaelstrom
3:17 AM GMT on July 03, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:
705 - Flagged, doesn't belong and that's just wrong, period. Not civil~!


I usually never comment on this sort of stuff, but I agree. I'll never understand what one hopes to accomplish with stuff like that.
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
714. Ossqss
3:10 AM GMT on July 03, 2011
Quoting spathy:


I agree.
Flagged.
I come close to crossing the line.
But I try my best not to.
Flag me if you ever see me cross the line.


This has helped me for 35 years.

Gotta love the music! :)



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
713. Neapolitan
3:07 AM GMT on July 03, 2011
Quoting spathy:


Sounds like the demonizing of warming skeptics.

Witch hunt (wich' hunt') - metaphor (coined 1932) 1. The act of seeking and persecuting any perceived enemy, particularly when the search is conducted using extreme measures and with little regard to actual guilt or innocence.

And all this time, warmists are not even saying there is a possible reason for doubt.
In a court of law there is (beyond all reasonable doubt).
In my view there is way more than reasonable doubt.
Yet My view is considered extreme.


I'm not demonizing "skeptics", spathy. I'm just stating that the constant harassment of scientists and scientific organizations are not a way of seeking truth and justice, but are rather a means of diverting the conversation away from science while casting doubt upon it. Numerous independent investigations of scientists involved in the manufactured "climategate" scandal have cleared them of all wrongdoing aside from a sometimes lack of professionalism in their communications with one another. For certain people to keep going back and digging and digging and digging and digging in the fervent hope they'll find something is neither honest nor productive, and--to me at least--smacks of anti-environmental McCarthyism.

Having said that, though, I'll say this again: even if every single scientist indicted by "climategate" was ultimately found to be a fraud, nothing about the science itself would change. Sure, some members of the public would be likely lose faith in the theory of AGW--but the planet would continue warming regardless.

BTW: thanks to you and to a few others on here for staying civil. It elevates the whole discussion, IMHO.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14494
709. Ossqss
2:25 AM GMT on July 03, 2011
705 - Flagged, doesn't belong and that's just wrong, period. Not civil~!
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192
703. CosmicEvents
10:15 PM GMT on July 02, 2011
Quoting RMuller:
So much for the "climategate" perpetrators being cleared by an "independent" investigation. Just more of the same from the climate hoaxsters.

Link

Those hoaxters are doing a hell of a job. I've been experiencing the climate in one location for 30 years and darned if it didn't change on a dime 5 years ago. I'm not a climatologist(are you?) but I know enough to actually see and feel the climate change, and I don't think that hoaxters have the power to do what I'm experiencing. I think that anyone but the most extreme denier would say there's indisputable and measurable proof of climate change. Whether this change is just some natural cycle or if it really is caused by AGW, that's what the debate is, isn't it? That's something we don't have 100% proof on either way, but just in case, I'd prefer to be safe rather than sorry. Hopefully we're not too late already.
.
.
For a layperson like myself, actually seeing/feeling the climate change is alarming. I'd say I'm surprised that there's a debate on what we should do.....but after the 2004 election, I'm numb to surprises from what public opinion is.
Member Since: August 3, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 5814
702. Neapolitan
9:26 PM GMT on July 02, 2011
Quoting RustyShackleford:


But you can personally attack everybody and it be ok?

Very nice Nea....

sigh...

Have you proof of those "attacks"? I attack no person; I merely challenge the things they say, and/or why they say them. Such is the nature of debate, is it not? ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14494
701. Neapolitan
9:23 PM GMT on July 02, 2011
Quoting RMuller:
So much for the "climategate" perpetrators being cleared by an "independent" investigation. Just more of the same from the climate hoaxsters.

Witch hunt (wich' hunt') - metaphor (coined 1932) 1. The act of seeking and persecuting any perceived enemy, particularly when the search is conducted using extreme measures and with little regard to actual guilt or innocence.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14494
698. Neapolitan
9:08 PM GMT on July 02, 2011
Quoting RMuller:
It also appears that the good Dr. Masters doesn't know the difference between "more" and "fewer." I guess when your theories are going down the tube, you hope the public won't remember what you said in the past. Thank goodness for the internet age.

Yes, thank goodness for the internet. Without it, unidentified ideologues who appear to be confused by the changing climate wouldn't have an easy way to publicly slander scientists such as Dr. Masters while remaining completely anonymous. :-\
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14494
693. Neapolitan
11:54 AM GMT on July 02, 2011
Quoting martinitony:
Latest research: no, the Reef isn’t being killed by warming
By Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
[snip]

When the denialosphere is so desperate for any tiny shred of what they feel is hopeful evidence that it will explode with the cherry-picked rantings of an avowed bigot, you know things are bad for them. And the speed with which that rant is disseminated is directly proportional to the level of that desperation; the just-published article to which martinitony linked already returns nearly 5,000 Google hits--including, yes, WUWT ("We Utilize Wishful Thinking").

Too bad Mr. Bolt didn't read the entire article. Or he's hoping no one else does. But I did, so allow me to excerpt a few notable phrases:

"Climate change is widely regarded as the single greatest threat to coral reef ecosystems."

"There are clear links between increases in ocean temperature and coral bleaching."

"Global patterns of coral loss suggest that areas closest to urban centres are most degraded, implying that chronic stressors are compounding the effects of warming."

"Cyclone intensity is...predicted to increase in a warming climate and since 1995, three high intensity systems have crossed the GBR [Great Barrier Reef]."

"Disturbances appear to be increasing in frequency and severity and it is not known whether coral growth will be able to keep pace with increased disturbance."

"Since the last widespread bleaching event on the GBR in 2002, summer sea surface temperatures have been high in some locations. Both disease and bleaching have clear links with increased temperature and are likely to be important causes of chronic mortality on stressed reefs."

"Climate change is expected to cause changes in relative abundance of species due to differential mortality and recovery rates."

To summarize the article: coral reefs are in decline all across the globe; that decline is due not just directly to warming, but to disturbances from cyclones that are more powerful now because of warming; coral reefs are living things that can and will try to recover after any disturbance, though as those disturbances increase, the GBR may not be able to bounce back; and, as with every part of science, more and longer-term studies are needed to determine the precise effects of warming on reef systems, and/or whether warming-incurred damage is recoverable.

And this is what the denialosphere points to as a "nail in the coffin" of AGW? ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 14494
692. martinitony
10:29 AM GMT on July 02, 2011
Latest research: no, the Reef isn’t being killed by warming
By Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun

Julia Gillard claims global warming is already killing the Great Barrier Reef:

Australian natural wonders such as the Great Barrier Reef are already being damaged, and the risk of coastal flooding could double by the end of the century.

Warmist alarmist Sir Nicholas Stern made the same claim:

The snows on Kilimanjaro are virtually gone, the Barrier Reef is probably going...

The ABC was already hypeing up the destruction of the reef by global warming in 2002:

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says up to 10 per cent of the reef has been lost to bleaching since 1998.

ABC host Kerry O�Brien back then treated the death of the reef as imminent:

It’s not just Australia’s farmlands which are threatened by global warming, the greenhouse effect could also spell disaster for coral reefs around the world, including our own natural wonder, the Great Barrier Reef.

As Australia prepares for another hot summer, one man is on a mission to capture as many corals as possible on high-definition camera before even more stretches of once-spectacular reef are bleached bone-white.

And remember the alarmism of prominent warmist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg?

In 1998, he warned that the reef was under pressure from global warming, and much had turned white. He later admitted the reef had made a “surprising” recovery.

In 1999 he claimed global warming would cause mass bleaching of the reef every two years from 2010.

He yesterday admitted it hadn’t.

In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland�s Great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.

He later admitted this bleaching had a “minimal impact”.

All that alarmism, relentlessly pushed by this desperately dishonest government, is now blown out of the water by the latest research by Townsville’s Australian Institute of Marine Science:

Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009....

Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease.

While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980�s suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10�100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery.

You have been deceived again and again and again.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
688. cyclonebuster
4:11 AM GMT on July 02, 2011
Quoting CosmicEvents:
Does it logically make sense that 100% of the sciencific findings from studies from sponsored by big oil say pshaw to the notion of agw, and 95% of the science from goverment/private research points in the other direction? 60/40, or 80/20 even I could see. But when it reaches the extremus you have to question the "results". Studies on both sides have been discredited, but that still leaves the remaining balance at 100% one way, and 95% the other.


Just monitor the Arctic Ice that will tell you what is happening.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20762
687. CosmicEvents
4:07 AM GMT on July 02, 2011
Does it logically make sense that 100% of the sciencific findings from studies from sponsored by big oil say pshaw to the notion of agw, and 95% of the science from goverment/private research points in the other direction? 60/40, or 80/20 even I could see. But when it reaches the extremus you have to question the "results". Studies on both sides have been discredited, but that still leaves the remaining balance at 100% one way, and 95% the other.
Member Since: August 3, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 5814
686. cyclonebuster
4:02 AM GMT on July 02, 2011
Quoting Ossqss:


Ok, last one.

Our atmosphere does not get heat from a burner underneath it. It is a broiler. Limit the solar influence and %uFFFD %uFFFD %uFFFD %u2014 %u2014 %u2014 %uFFFD %uFFFD %uFFFD gone ~ (W/m%uFFFD)


Doesn't matter what heats the pot of water. The more heat that is added the more water vapor you get. It is that simple.In fact you will get even more vapor if you lower the atmospheric pressure.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 134 Comments: 20762
684. Ossqss
4:00 AM GMT on July 02, 2011
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Sure we do. Put a pot of water on the stove top and turn the heat on what happens?


Ok, last one.

Our atmosphere does not get heat from a burner underneath it!

It is a broiler.

Limit the solar influence and

... - - - ...
gone ~ (W/m squared)
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8192

Viewing: 734 - 684

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Overcast
67 °F
Overcast

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.