It’s early to say it, but I’ll say it early — Willis Eschenbach has achieved an earth-shaking breakthrough that’ll have him hailed a hero for years to come.
His fame will live on long after he has gone. He hasn’t merely found that carbon dioxide doesn’t control the temperature. He’s provided a reason to discard the very notion that any single forcing controls the surface temperature. The climate is a complex system.
His achievement is a triumph.
Highlights
I don’t have a local church door to nail this thesis to, so I’ll nail it up on WUWT typos and all and go to bed. I think it is the most compelling evidence I’ve found to date that the basic climate paradigm of temperatures slavishly following the forcings is a huge misunderstanding at the core of current climate science … but I’m biased in the matter.
So that’s it, that’s the whole story. Let me highlight the main points.
• Volcanic eruptions cause a large, measurable drop in the amount of solar energy entering the planet.
• Under the current climate paradigm that temperature is a slave to forcing with a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling of CO2, these should cause large, lingering swings in the planet’s temperature.
• Despite the significant size of these drops in forcing, we see only a tiny resulting signal in the global temperature.
• This gives us two stark choices.
A. Either the climate sensitivity is around half a degree per doubling of CO2, and the time constant is under a year, or
B. The current paradigm of climate sensitivity is wrong and forcings don’t determine surface temperature.
Based on the actual observations, I hold for the latter.
• The form (a damped oscillation) and speed of the climate’s response to eruptive forcing shows the action of a powerful natural governing system which regulates planetary temperatures.
• This system restores both the temperature and the energy content of the system to pre-existing conditions in a remarkably short time.
The first and most important conclusion is that the climate doesn’t work the way that the climate paradigm states — it is clearly not a linear response to forcing. If it were linear, the results would look like the models. But the models are totally unable to replicate the rapid response to the volcanic forcings, which return to pre-existing temperatures in 18 months and restore the energy balance in 48 months. The models are not even close. Even with ridiculously small time constant and sensitivity, you can’t do it. The shape of the response is wrong.
I hold that this is because the models do not contain the natural emergent temperature-controlling phenomena that act in concert to return the system to the pre-catastrophic condition as soon as possible.
The second conclusion is that the observations clearly show the governed nature of the system. The swing of temperatures after the eruptions and the quick return of both temperature and energy levels to pre-eruption conditions shows the classic damped oscillations of a governed system. None of the models were even close to being able to do what the natural system does—shake off disturbances and return to pre-existing conditions in a very short time.
Third conclusion is that the existing paradigm, that the surface air temperature is a linear function of the forcing, is untenable. The volcanoes show that quite clearly.
A corollary of this hypothesis is that although the signal may not be very detectable in the global temperature itself, for that very reason it should be detectable in the action of whatever phenomena act to oppose the volcanic cooling.
So that was my prediction, that if my theory were correct, we should see a volcanic signal in some other part of the climate system involved in governing the temperature.
And so it proved. I think this deserves mention even in the mainstream media. Are they listening?
Views: 144
Wow, a massage therapist with a BA in psychology who has worked as a Construction Manager at Taunovo Bay Resort in Fiji, Sport Fishing guide in Alaska and more recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil…. is crushing climate science…..
Shows you that anybody with a PC and an armchair can outwit entire science departments.
http://www.desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach
Now I am really worried….. 😉
LOL, not a word about the DATA, just attack the messenger. “Climate Science(tm)” in a nutshell.
DAS
Did the railroad engineer from the IPCC ever get around to explaining how the temperature is supposed to rise beyond 1.2C per doubling of CO2 without positive feedback from water vapour yet Thomas?
Magoo, you can read about Professor Pachauri Ph.D. and his distinguished career and his academic credentials here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri before you dig yourself a hole in trying to compare him to a massage therapist.
You didn’t answer the question Thomas.
Because I don’t think we are in kindergarten here. If you have no concept of what the IPCC says then don’t comment here about it, eh!
Now go and read for yourself: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html
Computer models are all good and fine Thomas, but without a tropospheric hotspot what evidence is there of positive feedback from water vapour?
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
Where is the upper tropospheric water vapour Thomas? The water vapour at lower levels tend to have a negative feedback due to their reflective qualities.
Magoo, he won’t answer because he can’t. Nowhere to go. Trapped.
Magoo and Bob, you have not the faintest idea don’t you. You just regurgitate nonsense from Nova and others. For your information:
http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/hot-spot-2-tropospheric-warming-continues/
Thomas:
We know very well what the IPCC says. Did you even read your own source? It says:
This effect is shown in Figure 9.1 of Chapter 9 (pg 675). Note that the results from the GCMs show tropospheric heating over the tropics at about twice the surface rate. Note this is not a “projection”; this is for 1890 to 1999. It should be really evident by now, over a decade later.
We’ve seen some warming from 1890 to 1999 at the surface, but where’s the much warmer hot spot in the upper troposphere above the tropics? Well, it just isn’t there. Oops.
What this tells us is that water vapour feedback isn’t happening. It just isn’t.
Therefore the climate response to a doubling of CO2 is at most 1.2°C, and is likely to be somewhat less if cloud feedbacks turn out to be predominantly negative.
Thomas:
Allen & Sherwood (2008) use wind shear to try to find the hot spot. Not convincing, considering all the thermometers (you know, those things we invented to measure temperature) that have tried to find it and failed.
Johnson & Xie (2010) also try to re-define what temperature is in order to find something that isn’t there.
Dessler (2010) find tropospheric specific humidity increases with El Ninos. Big whoop, that’s not the issue. Where’s the temperature rise that is supposed to follow?
Thorne (2010) looked at some papers to come to their conclusion. How about looking at the observational data instead? I can assure you that if the hot spot was actually there they wouldn’t be trying to work out from other papers if it existed or not.
Santer et al (2012) is famous for trying to pretend that the hotspot is there, it’s just so well hidden that we can’t actually see it. Fail.
And Titchner et al. (2009). Observations from years of radiosondes don’t match our models. Of course that means the observations are wrong. Love it.
So Bob, did you read this?
http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/hot-spot-2-tropospheric-warming-continues/
I posted before. I guess if you carry on about the hotspot you should perhaps actually read the page I cited.
Or more here:
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Are-Climate-Models-Inconsistent.aspx
Douglass et al. (2007) looked at the actual data and concluded:
We also have others weighing in (Po-Chedley et al., 2012):
In other words, the models are hopelessly over-estimating the water vapour feedback temperature response.
But the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is provided by Santer himself. In Thorne et al. (2011) Santer is forced to admit:
(Above 300hPa is where the hot spot should be, by the way.)
Interestingly, they find that they have some agreement from 1958 to 1979, but none since. Shouldn’t that be the other way around? Lol.
From itsnotnova:-
>”….estimated tropospheric amplification of surface temperature changes was in good agreement in all model and observational data sets considered,”
Except they weren’t talking about the posited upper tropospheric hotspot – surface is surface.
Preceding paragraph from paper:-
“The amplification of tropical surface
temperature changes was assessed
on different timescales (monthly,
annual, and multi-decadal) and in
different atmospheric layers (T*T
and T2LT).”
And see – Trend Comparisons:
5. Comparing trend differences between the surface and the troposphere exposes potential discrepancies between models and observations in the tropics.
• In the tropics, most observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, while most model runs have larger warming aloft than at the surface.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf
Bob D,
Impressive work. Well done.
Page 28/116 of The U.S. Climate Change Science Program Santer et al review (undated) as quoted by istsnotnova – Chapter 5: Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences:-
Figure 5.7: Zonal-mean patterns of atmospheric temperature change in “20CEN” experiments
performed with four different climate models and in observational radiosonde data. Model results are for CCSM3.0 (panel A), PCM (panel B), GFDL CM 2.1 (panel C), and GISS-EH (panel D). The model experiments are ensemble means. There are differences between the sets of climate forcings that the four models used in their 20CEN runs (Table 5.3). Observed changes (panel E) were estimated with HadAT2 radiosonde data (Thorne et al., 2005, and Chapter 3). The HadAT2 temperature data do not extend above 30 hPa, and have inadequate coverage at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. All temperature changes were calculated from monthly-mean data and are expressed as linear trends (in ºC/decade) over 1979 to 1999.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf
# # #
Four different model configurations exhibiting upper tropical troposphere heat accumulation (hotspot).
One observation dataset exhibiting NO upper tropical troposphere heat accumulation (hotspot)
Described in the review as – “potential discrepancies between models and observations in the tropics”
Great work Bob. Now I would ask you one thing: Have you actually read the paper (Thorne et.al, 2011)?
When you answer the question with yes/no we will talk further.
IPCC AR5 on upper tropospheric temperature, pages 9–26 to 9-27:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch9_models_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch09_All_Final.pdf
9.4.1.3.2 Upper tropospheric temperature trends.
‘Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates (McKitrick et al., 2010; Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012; Santer et al., 2012).’
‘In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011.’
The McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman (2010) paper is below:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
Thomas:
I have, yes. Have you?
We also have McKitrick et al. (2010):
Bengtsson & Hodges (2011) of the Max Planck Institute also found that there was a systematic warm bias in the models for the upper troposphere over 1979-2008. They also found (as did the others) that the TMT warming rate is lower than the TLT.
In other words, not only is the upper troposphere not warming at about double the rate of the surface, it’s actually warming even slower than the surface.
Clearly, all is not well in ModelLand.
And of course Fu et al. (2011):
Note: I’ve removed numerous reference parentheses here to aid readability.
Their conclusion?
QED.
Here’s a nice summary of the McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman (2010) paper Thomas:
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mm1.png
Which is why we have this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
A bit of background from Douglass (2007):
From the US Climate Change Science Program (Ben Santer) Fingerprint Pattern Studies:
Not surprisingly they prefer to believe the second reason rather than the first.
Another one (Christy et al.,2011):
“This result indicates the majority of AR4 simulations tend to portray significantly greater warming in the troposphere relative to the surface than is found in observations.”
Where’s Thomas gone? He must be hiding.
Hi Bob, great you read the Thorne et.al 2011 paper.
I guess you would have read the sentence that follows the one you cited here?
Let me show it to those who don’t read the sources they are citing and instead copy-paste the cherry picked bits from another blog (always go back to the sources and read the whole paper!):
Oh wow, Thomas, is that the best you’ve got? Far from hiding the next sentence, I specifically mentioned the 1958- period in my comment.
But I don’t think you understand the issue here. The period 1979 onwards (Satellite era) is the period when the agreement is supposed to occur (Hansen, 1988; IPCC AR4, 2007).
The fact that 1958-2003 (Full period) agrees well while 1979-2003 does not obviously implies that all the agreement is pre-1979, and since 1979 there has been no agreement. If it was the other way around it would make sense, since according to Hansen the anthropogenic greenhouse effect would only be discernible in the temperature record since about 1990.
Have a look at Fig 12 for an understanding of the “agreement”. What he’s saying is that the 95% confidence whiskers just overlap for the Full Period case, while they don’t for the Satellite Era. But more importantly, look at the Full Period interquartile boxes – the TMT values are all below the model interquartile range, and the median is still less than the HadCRUT3 surface trends. In other words, we’re not arguing here whether the TMT warmed at twice or maybe 1.5 times the surface rate: instead the TMT warmed less than the surface!
And from this he feels that there is “consistent model‐data agreement”, and that “the disagreement in the more recent period is not necessarily evidence of a general problem”. I don’t think so – the disagreement in the more recent period is exactly evidence of a general problem. He’s trying to spin this in the only way he can, by grasping at straws.
Besides, this satellite era disagreement hasn’t gone away – see McKitrick et al. (2011) for an updated dataset result (They used data to 2009). They find:
Bob, as long as there are well funded individuals like McKitrick, supported by groups such as Heartland, Fraser Institute and others, you will always get to hear precisely what you always wanted if you read their stuff.
As of the people actually involved in doing the hard work…. how about you read:
“Separating Signal and Noise in Atmospheric Temperature Changes: The Importance of Timescale” Santer et.al 2011
The above sentence applies as we know to all ideas that say that short term (decadal) observations are suitable to ‘disprove’ human influences on the climate.
Or read what CISRO has to offer on the matter of the hot-spot:
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Are-Climate-Models-Inconsistent/In-detail.aspx
So good luck with your hot-spot!
Thomas,
Once again you’re not understanding the basics. The hotspot is not about detecting a warming trend, it’s about the amplification factor between the surface and middle-to-upper troposphere. It’s a ratio. Also, the studies (eg:McKitrick, 2011) we’re talking about extend over 1979-2011, a 32-year period.
Try to understand, it’s very frustrating when you keep missing the point.
Also, your CSIRO link is hopelessly out of date. The IPCC (AR5) position on this contradicts the CSIRO:
See Magoo’s comment above.
Bob, so you show that we know that models had overestimated the warming trend in the so called ‘hotspot’ zone.
But now you somehow claim that this equates to ‘disproving’ that water vapor amplification occurs as a result of CO2 forcing???
Wow!
As you know, the model/observation differences are understood and much has been resolved through better calibrations of measurements.
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Climate/Are-Climate-Models-Inconsistent/In-detail.aspx
Thomas:
Water vapour amplification over the long term is clearly not as high as the IPCC assumed (1.5 to 2 times the surface warming). In fact, the science is suggesting that it may be as low as zero, or even negative.
If that is the case, then the CS is clearly much lower than previously assumed, and the response to doubling of CO2 may only be 1.2°C. If that is true, then the sceptics were right all along.
I can see why that would annoy you (and many others), but that’s the way science works, sorry.
Oh, and block-copying opinions from a CSIRO link after I’ve shown how out of date it is really isn’t achieving anything.
Oh and here is a good analysis of Eschbach’s latest nonsense, its reasonably comprehensive das75…. and so I won’t waste my time here further on this one.
Is it a good analysis Thomas? They keep scratching their heads saying that they can’t understand Willis’ argument, and then in comments they can’t understand the concept of TCS (transient climate sensitivity) (“They” being the author(s) and the commenters)
Then this
What do they mean by “modern volcanoes”. Are these trendy urbanite Guardian reading volcanoes? Or perhaps they mean “recent” ones
And how come some are still claiming that we are feeling the rebound from Pinatobu?
To be honest, I haven’t had the time to sift through all the arguments and counter-arguments, but when a blog post immediately starts on the Ad Hom (Willis has Dunning Kruger), then it is a bit of a turn off.
No, the analysis at HotWhopper is consistently negative, which indicates a bias. Even the worst scientific paper gets some things right and it’s the action of bias that omits mention of them.
The author says of herself (my emphasis): “I’m a sixties-something women with an interest in climate science. I have a Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours) and an MBA and work as a freelance consultant.”
So she’s got a few brains. She quotes the IPCC to show they’ve always considered the climate to be complex:
However (overlooking for now the lack of mention of negative responses), I doubt that’s ever been in the SPM and of a certainty we’ve been listening for years to alarmists telling us that CO2 is the climate system’s thermostat. Funny how all that’s suddenly forgotten. Funny how everyone is laughing at us for ever thinking the climate system was simple. But we never did.
I meant to say that, although it’s no surprise, it’s disappointing to see Thomas take this analysis at face value, though it’s not from a climate scientist or an IPCC author. His own standards are lower than those he expects of others.
Here is one of the more recent “CO2 is the Control Knob” papers (Lacis et al) reviewed by Roger Pielke Snr
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/comment-on-the-science-paper-atmospheric-co2-principal-control-knob-governing-earth%E2%80%99s-temperature-by-lacis-et-al-2010/
[Update]
Note this phrase
This is what Chris de Freitas was trying to demonstrate with his paint on window analogy, but apparently this is “wrong” according to his critics.
Cool, your site has a troll now! you must be over the target since you’re getting flak
please send relevant info the PM John Key… after all NZ is paying MORE IN TAXES because of MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING
which DOESN’T EXIST… but Key says “scientists all agree…” so the CONSENSUS made him do it? … crikey
… infuriating, isn’t it
Nice, Lisa! Thanks!
>”…the classic damped oscillations of a governed system”
The performance of which is shown to be inadequate in retroactive climate modeling.
And they expect 100 year future climate model scenario acceptance seriously to the tune of billions of dollars in punitive taxes to – as Ottmar Edenhofer of the UN IPCC puts it – “redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy”?
So, Eschbach’s been shot down in flames, what else have you got?
Oh, I see, just the perennial “missing hotspot”, which is neither missing, nor a characteristic signature of AGW – is that really the best you can do?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
[Snipped.]
>”Eschbach’s been shot down in flames”
Apart from your inability to spell his name, how exactly?
Rob,
You say: “the perennial “missing hotspot”, which is neither missing, nor a characteristic signature of AGW.” Trenberth et al. (2005) say:
You’re right that the hot spot wasn’t supposed to be a direct signature of AGW, but, to disappoint you, the authors draw a direct connection with GHG by saying:
Which confirms why guys on your side have been saying that the hot spot would “prove” man’s contribution to global warming. That’s the first message from this paper.
The second message is that they could not find the hot spot. Note that Skeptical Science is no great help in this, because the article you link to fudges the point without shame. They say:
They’re almost right but it still means that if warming was being caused by GHG there would be (robustly, according to Trenberth) a hot spot. Cook says: “Looking at all this evidence, the conclusion is, well, a little unsatisfying.” Hardly surprising, when they don’t find the hot spot and the only study that comes close ignores the thermometers and looks very closely at wind speeds, claiming a “direct relationship between temperature and wind shear.”
So, although the thermometers found no warming, the very same balloons found the air was moving, from which they claim to have detected warming. They think you are stupid!
The hot spot is characteristic of water vapour feedback though. Where is the positive feedback from water vapour Rob?
Even the IPCC admits the hotspot is missing in AR5.
Do try to read the references already provided, Magoo [snipped].
So you’ve already read all those references I gave Thomas, Rob? Any comments?
Oh I have Rob, several times over the years. Sks says:
‘So, does the “hot spot” actually exist? That is to say, is the tropsosphere actually warming as expected? Unfortunately, the answer to this is much less cut and dry.’
Which means no, it doesn’t exist. As also evidenced by numerous scientific papers that Bob D has taken the trouble to reference above, as well as the McKitrick 2010 one I offered also. The IPCC also say the same thing in AR5.
The Sks website tries to avoid the issue by sidetracking the debate into the ‘fingerprint’ argument, where the troposphere is supposed to warm as the stratosphere cools. This is not the issue. The Issue is, if the tropospheric hotspot doesn’t exist, what evidence is there for positive feedback from water vapour?
You Sks link shows no evidence of the hot spot or positive feedback, so where is it?
Yawn – once you’ve seen one straw man, you’ve seen them all…
It’s actually quite risible, how you skate past the tropospheric warming / stratospheric cooling – clear evidence of AGW – to latch onto one of the few AGW predictions that is still within the margin of error.
When, in time, an accurate measurement is achieved, you’ll doubtless be off to chase the next “squirrel!”; it’s so quaintly reminiscent of the God-Botherers’ “God of the Gaps”, and the “missing link” so beloved of anti-evolutionists.
Not, of course, that I expect anything new or creative coming out of Treadgold Swamp…
Nice try Rob, now where is the evidence of positive feedback from water vapour?
Your attempt to avoid the elephant in the room is pretty pathetic – don’t you have any evidence?
Even the IPCC says it doesn’t exist. IPCC AR5 on upper tropospheric temperature, pages 9–26 to 9-27:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch9_models_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch09_All_Final.pdf
9.4.1.3.2 Upper tropospheric temperature trends.
‘Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates (McKitrick et al., 2010; Po-Chedley and Fu, 2012; Santer et al., 2012).’
‘In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011.’
Ben Santer (do you believe him, Rob?):
-US Climate Change Science Program, Chapter 5, Fingerprint Pattern Studies
What about the NRC, Rob, do you believe them?:
Yes Lisa, LULZ… and its even instructional from time to time.
I had no reason of late for example to read some of Cris De Feitas research papers. I have now. Cool Stuff! Did you know that CF spent a reasonable chunk of the last decade and more on studying the impacts of Climate Change on Tourism for example? I did not know that!
Wicket, that a man who just said:
… devotes a lot of his research career to investigate how “not much warming (his belief)” might affect tourism? Allas, he gets to hold workshops in fun places such as Greece or Crete. Tempting really.
Also as a teacher I find it interesting to sample misconceptions and typical knowledge gaps such as ‘how can the acidity of the ocean have increased by 30% if the pH level only goes down by 0.02 per decade’….. Very few people know that the pH scale is a logarithmic scale or what it really stands for but have a steadfast opinion on ocean acidification….
Yea, Its good to explore this world of minds and there are a lot more interesting observations on the mentality of people to be made here…..
Thomas,
His tourism publications occupy, eyeballing it, maybe ten percent of that long list of papers, articles and books. Laughing constantly at the same little joke? You’re making a hyena of yourself now.
Thomas seems to think it is massively hypocritical for someone who is “teaching climate denial” (sic) to be feeding off climate change funding.
As far as I can see, CdF’s only “crime” is to not mention the Hockey Stick in his classes.
Given that the IPCC dropped Mann’s original one, and the other “independent” studies like Yamal, Gergis and Marcott, for example, are also highly suspect, then that is probably good judgement on his part
RT, you begin this thread by heaping fulsome and ridiculous praise on a scientific nonentity, Willis Eschenbach, whose mumbo-jumbo on denial blogs clearly fits your predjudices.
Yet, had you but taken a short drive to Albany last night, you could have heard the facts of climate change and resource depletion from a world-class scientist and governmental advisor who, before he came to NZ, addressed both the Indian parliament and the Chinese politburo.
Who is going to have the greater impact on world affairs? Your massage therapist? Or Professor Sir David King, author of over 500 scientific papers and founder of a billion-pound new technology initiative?
I think we all know the answer to that one…
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/events/engine-series/improving-human-well-being.cfm
As an unimpressive non-scientific nonentity I marvel that you take the trouble even to communicate with me, so thank you. Mind you, I’m more interested in discussing climate science than negotiating your prickly and uncomfortable ad hominem abuse and tolerating your persistent refusal to answer our questions. Why should we bother about fighting global warming, since it stalled a while ago? For evidence of this, please see the graphs of global temperature at Climate4you.com.
[
As always,Half-snipped. – RT] when faced with a reality that does not fit your ideology, RT, you choose to embrace ignorance and play the victim, rather than take the opportunity to educate yourself in the real world.“Willis Eschenbach has achieved an earth-shaking breakthrough that’ll have him hailed a hero for years to come.”
Yeah, right, good luck with that… now, here’s someone whose fame has lasted down the centuries: Joseph Fourier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier
The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet’s lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, discovered in 1860 by John Tyndall and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
I’m not disagreeing with that. We would possibly differ over the magnitude of the warming, but that’s all. You’re awfully sensitive. All Eschenbach has done is find evidence that the climate is complex, and it’s likely that no single factor controls the temperature. What’s wrong with that? But I don’t know why I bother to ask the question. There’s the post itself, in all its glory, and I think you’ve completely ignored it so far except to lampoon the author and me. You’re not too credible, old chap.
Richard T:
How can you reconcile your headline “CLIMATE DOCTRINE CRUSHED” with your own statement above:
“All Eschenbach has done is find evidence that the climate is complex, and it’s likely that no single factor controls the temperature.”
???
Don’t you think that anybody who is involved with climate science knows that?
Now how do we get from “climate is complex” to “Climate doctrine crushed”? And what doctrine has Eschenbach crushed in your opinion?
No, I thought co2 was the control knob of the climate,
Are you now telling us that there are many knobs involved?
No you never did.
Thomas,
Thanks for asking. First, you’re right, anyone connected with climate science knows that it’s complex. You may wonder, then, why people on your side of the fence have for years been telling us that CO2 drives the climate system and that CO2 is the world’s thermostat, citing papers that
suggestprove it could be true. You may wonder why the intense focus for many years has been on our emissions of CO2, with mere supporting roles for CH4, NO and others. You may wonder why coal is so heavily deprecated for its extra emissions of CO2 for each BTU given up. The answer is those things arose not from scientific understanding but out of political motives. We, on the other hand, have always known that the climate is complex. Your side’s simplistic depictions have always been intensely frustrating. Now they’re abruptly abandoned — which is good, don’t get me wrong. But it’s most convenient.So now the doctrine you seem not to detect is easy to understand. It’s the carbon doctrine. Because we now have Willis Eschenbach’s brilliantly lucid description of the overlapping feedbacks involved in the climate, it’s easy to see that “carbon” is only a bit player in this miraculous, life-sustaining and beautiful planet of ours.
It will no longer be necessary to demonise carbon or to strive to remove it from our lives, for there’s no reason to do so. It will no longer be necessary to ignore real pollution. It will no longer be necessary to crush the poor by burning their food.
It will now be possible to attend to and pay for real problems.
Richard, this is total nonsense. You may delude yourself as you wish. Everybody as the right to their very own fairytales.
Is Sir David King as thick as that Beddington chap?
I get the impression there isn’t a lot going on upstairs with these Chief Scientist types.
Not a lot going on upstairs, Andy?
Well, golly gee whiz, perhaps you can share with us just how close you got to a Nobel Prize, and the number of scientific papers you have written?
“In 1988 he was appointed Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Cambridge and subsequently became Master of Downing College (1995–2000) and Head of the University Chemistry Department (1993–2000).
During this time, King, together with Gabor Somorjai and Gerhard Ertl, shaped the discipline of surface science and helped to explain the underlying principles of heterogeneous catalysis. However, the 2007 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Ertl alone.
King has published over 500 papers on his research in chemical physics and on science and policy, and has received numerous prizes, Fellowships and Honorary Degrees. King was knighted in 2003 and in 2009 made a Chevalier of the Légion d’Honneur. He continues as Director of Research in the Department of Chemistry at Cambridge University.
Sounds very impressive. Does King have any actual climate science credentials?
I only get my information from actual climate scientists who have published climate science in climate journals that are approved by the IPCC and are considered part of the 97% of consensus scientists.( including the ones that are part of the 97% consensus that are considered Deniers by SkS)
Is this guy actually in a position to advise is about climate science? Why don’t we ask Barack Obama to talk about atmospheric physics? He has a Nobel Prize, after all.
Weak, Andy – David King’s disciplines of chemistry and physics are the foundations of climate science, as I’m sure you are aware.
As for RT’s vacuous plea, he lampoons himself far more effectively than I could:
“All Eschenbach has done is find evidence that the climate is complex, and it’s likely that no single factor controls the temperature. What’s wrong with that? But I don’t know why I bother to ask the question. There’s the post itself, in all its glory, and I think you’ve completely ignored it so far except to lampoon the author and me”
RT, any high school science student knows that the climate is a complex system, and you would too, if you bothered to educate yourself to the slightest degree outside the pseudoscientific denier circles you waste your time in.
“Garbage In, Garbage Out” would be a truer motto for this site.
‘Garbage in, garbage out’ is what leads to this sort of thing Rob:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
And this too:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif
Is heterogeneous catalysis the foundation of climate science?
My issue is that science is very specialised these days, with people working in very narrow silos.
Sir David King is, I am sure, a very accomplished scientist in his discipline. One of the problems, I feel, is that scientists assume that other branches of science are as rigorous as their own.
We haven’t heard much from Sir Peter Gluckman on the topic of climate recently. Maybe he has realised that he shouldn’t drag his own reputation down by shackling himself to the climate change bandwagon, which I expect soon will be regarded as a career-killer.
Andy, please — it’s not necessary to antagonise people when they turn up already agonised.
I have reached a crossroads! My middle name is Thomas; your comments on this blog have so soiled that name I am going to plea to the courts here in the USA to change it. Is this comment an ad hom. Yep, it sure is! I LOTHE Ad Homs so I have carefully considered this. Unlike the warmist who throw ad homs around like confetti, I have carefully considered the matter. YOU deserve ad homs. PS I’m not going to make my new middle name Taylor>
Thomas Christie-Taylor. Nice ring to it.
stan, Bob,
You’re both off-topic and offering unscientific abuse. Take five demerit points and stand in the corner until playtime then give the points back.
<Sucks thumb>
hee
Bob / RT, while you’re being so cute (tee hee), perhaps you can tell us why the Antartic ice shelves are melting from below?Could it be (giggle) that the ocean is warming?By golly, the same thing seems to be happening in Greenland as well!http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/27/254996/melting-antarctic-ice/It really makes ya think, dunnit?Off-topic. But the ice in contact with the water is always melting, wherever it is, because it’s always colder than the water. – RT
Richard T got there first (dammit) but yes, water has been known to melt ice in the past. Interesting that they’re claiming the icy water appears to be “boiling”. Ah well, it’s Joe Romm, no intelligence there.
Did it make me think? Oh yes, but not for long.
Also, it’s long been acknowledged that circulation patterns change around the peninsula, sometimes feeding in warmer water, sometimes not. Ice shelves are usually formed by excess ice being pushed out over the water. Bits breaking off, underside melting, it all happens as a natural result of excess ice.
Antarctic sea ice reached a record high extent recently. Makes you think.
If you believe that planetary surface temperatures are all to do with radiative forcing rather than non-radiative heat transfers, then you are implicitly agreeing with IPCC authors (and Dr Roy Spencer) that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. You are believing this because you are believing the 19th century simplification of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which said heat only transfers from hot to cold – a “law” which is indeed true for all radiation, but only strictly true in a horizontal plane for non-radiative heat transfer by conduction.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium “spontaneously evolves” and that thermodynamic equilibrium will be the state of greatest accessible entropy.
Now, thermodynamic equilibrium is not just about temperature, which is determined by the mean kinetic energy of molecules, and nothing else. Pressure, for example, does not control temperature. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a state in which total accessible energy (including potential energy) is homogeneous, because if it were not homogeneous, then work could be done and so entropy could still increase.
When such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves in a vertical plane in any solid, liquid or gas, molecules at the top of a column will have more gravitational potential energy (PE), and so they must have less kinetic energy (KE), and so a lower temperature, than molecules at the bottom of the column. This state evolves spontaneously as molecules interchange PE and KE in free flight between collisions, and then share the adjusted KE during the next collision.
This postulate was put forward by the brilliant physicist Loschmidt in the 19th century, but has been swept under the carpet by those advocating that radiative forcing is necessary to explain the observed surface temperatures. Radiative forcing could never explain the mean temperature of the Venus surface, or that at the base of the troposphere of Uranus – or that at the surface of Earth.
The gravitationally induced temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere is fully sufficient to explain all planetary surface temperatures. All the weak attempts to disprove it, such as a thought experiment with a wire outside a cylinder of gas, are flawed, simply because they neglect the temperature gradient in the wire itself, or other similar oversights.
The gravity effect is a reality and the dispute is not an acceptable disagreement.
The issue is easy to resolve with a straight forward, correct understanding of the implications of the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Hence radiative forcing is not what causes the warming, and so carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what is just natural climate change.
Is the “gravitationally induced temperature gradient” a recognised effect?
Yes, RT, this unknown commenter must be a greater mind than even than the mighty Willis Eschenbach!
You can believe anything he says, particularly when he contradicts himself, because, what is truth, anyway, in this wonderful post-rational world of yours…?
“the ice in contact with the water is always melting, wherever it is, because it’s always colder than the water. – RT”
Oh really? So why does the polar sea ice expand in winter, Richard?
Come to think of it, how did the ice ages ever come about?
Because the growth rate exceeds the melt rate.
Gravito-Thermal theories are the stuff of perpetual motion confabulators….. (and would lead directly to actually constructing one, which leads the whole concept at-absurdum)
They are the result of lay people getting their head just deep enough into the world of science to get completely lost….
Well, thank you, Thomas, but I must wonder how a self-confessed ignoramus in science might be so confident about that?
In 10 seconds Richard: If the natural state of a column of gas, just under gravity, no external energy input, would have it so that the gas column sorts itself in hot at the bottom and cold at the top, then you could run a thermal engine (Carnot cycle engine) exploiting the temperature difference and extract energy, say in form of a running light bulb. This engine would deliver heat to the top and cool the bottom, which, thanks to the gravito thermal theory, would soon be restored to where it all was. The light energy would say be absorbed again in the same gas column, so we keep the total energy constant.
Now you need to explain why the engine keeps running and the light shining….
The solution is (I am over the 10 seconds…) that the gravito-thermal theories say energy is equally distributed among all molecules in the gas. The correct way is: Energy is equally distributed in all equal sized sub volumes of the gas column. Then all returns to normal as it is and the gas column under gravity with no external heat input has equal temperature in all parts of the column.
You will find that explained in a lot more words elsewhere on the net.
Oh and just for clarification, who is the ‘self confessed ignoramus in Science’ here according to you???
>”….the stuff of perpetual motion confabulators…..”
As is AGW, which you agreed with Thomas when I highlighted the idiocy of it:-
To which you responded:-
My reply being (subsequent edit in following comment):-
There’s no escaping the truth i.e. AGW is, as you put it Thomas, “the stuff of perpetual motion confabulators”
National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 5
This article contrasts and compares two of the most important peer-reviewed climate studies of their day – one generation apart – to expose bogus greenhouse gas claims. We see how short the time frame was when consensus science switched from declaring the greenhouse gas effect as junk to claiming it as a trigger for an impending climate apocalypse.
[Graphic: ‘A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?’ http://johnosullivan.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ghe-perpetual-motion-diagram.jpg?w=681&h=405%5D
[…] The most striking obvious feature of ‘Ramanathan’ is that it omits any mention of any carbon dioxide-driven greenhouse gas effect. Yet 20 years on KT97 makes the effect center stage in climate science attribution. This spectacular switch in emphasis begs the question: what great new discoveries caused this paradigm shift in climatology?
[…] Somehow, somewhere, between 1978 and 1997, when KT97 was first published, the GHE was resuscitated. CO2 suddenly became a key player in the system while it’s role was switched from being a cooling gas to a dangerously warming one!
But there is no citation in KT97 to explain how and when these reversals from ‘Ramanathan’ were made. As such it is hard to fathom why KT97 would incorporate ‘Ramanathan’ with it now being rendered a contradictory (and presumably debunked) reference.
So, with no explanation in KT97 it appears that the long- refuted GHE arbitrarily and capriciously became re-instated while the known cooling characteristics of carbon dioxide were (without explanation) reverse so that it was installed as the presumed cause of heating with a climate-forcing factor of 32 W m-2. Absent any scientific explanation for the switch, the reason must be unscientific, perhaps political.
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/national-academies-and-the-non-greenhouse-gas-effect-part-5/
Ya, gaga land Richard….. BTW did you ever look up Carnot engines, efficiencies and so on for work extraction from temperature differentials? Then contemplate your hopes to solve our energy problems by tapping into the ‘thermal flow’ between our ground and the atmosphere….
Perhaps that will also assist you in contemplating the perpetual motion paradox in the gravito-thermal theories…
>”Ya, gaga land Richard…..”
AGW certainly is Thomas, on that we agree according to the quotation of your comment up-thread.
>…..contemplate your hopes to solve our energy problems by tapping into the ‘thermal flow’ between our ground and the atmosphere….”
Don’t know where you got this idea from Thomas – it’s not mine. It is implied by Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 AGW heat flow diagram though
>Perhaps that will also assist you in contemplating the perpetual motion paradox in the gravito-thermal theories…”
I wasn’t contemplating that either. I was however, contemplating the perpetual motion machine implied by KT97 (as are most other AGW sceptics).
BTW, you do realize there are 2 “Richard”‘s on this thread don’t you Thomas?
Various individuals on this thread are starting to behave as if this is the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party and the Revd. Charles Dodson is writing their contributions.
In defence of Willis E, I believe him to be a genuine polymath who can elucidate complicated scientific principles and schema in plain, unvarnished English and who writes brilliantly entertaining short stories which, in many cases show a warm and generous spirit plus a clear-eyed and very real empathy with the poor and disadvantaged of the world.
His description of building blast freezers from scratch in primitive conditions on a Pacific atoll is a minor classics in the annals of marine engineering.
In my reasonably long life, I have worked with university-educated and multi-degreed twits who couldn’t grasp simple scientific concepts if they were thrust under their noses and with those at the opposite end of the scale, who, without the benefit of anything more than a couple of fairly mediocre years at high school, designed and built incredibly complex mechanical and electronic devices that have world patents and made their creators a reasonable fortune.
The tales of educated mediocrities are legion: anyone who mistakes the possession of a degree or degrees as a mark of ability or intelligence or success is perpetuating a very old error.
I agree (as a multi-degreed twit) with that Alexander.
Willis has some interesting ideas, some of them might fly, some not. He is certainly an interesting person who opens up some new avenues for thought.
Andy, I probably owe apologies to clever blokes and blokesses who have degrees because of my sin of omission – I should have added that I have also worked with genuinely clever, creative people who do have multiple degrees. Sorry if I offended anyone!
I don’t believe Willis E always gets it exactly right either, but often enough to make him a genuine and admirable polymath.
Further experimental proof of the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect can be easily seen in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube wherein a force far greater than gravity separates a gas into measurably hotter and colder streams as it redistributes kinetic energy, just as happens in a planet’s troposphere due to the force of gravity.