The Holocene Deniers

[thaumaturgy]

Oh yes it is right. Do you have a physics degree? I do. And I have published in atmospheric radiative transfer. Now, if the temperature doesn't rise as rapidly as the radiation equations would require, then there are feedback loops which prevent it from happening.

Hmmm, I will have to obviously defer to the guy with the physics degree who has published in atmospheric radiative transfer, but why would I assume that a mass of any gas or any material would achieve a given equilibrium temperature nearly instantaneously?

Isn't there some transfer of energy going on from the CO2 to the other gases in the atmosphere? The entire atmosphere isn't all CO2 molecules, or all greenhouse gases for that matter, it is a mass of other gases which don't all necessarily absorb in the IR. Which means it must transfer some of that energy to the bulk of the atmosphere.

Why would any of this occur "at the speed of light"?

If I put water in a microwave (where it will absorb microwave radiation) it doesn't all get to the same temperature instantaneously.

Why would the atmosphere?

The factors that determine climate response times were investigated with simple models and scaling statements. The response times are particularly sensitive to (i) the amount that the climate response is amplified by feedbacks and (ii) the representation of ocean mixing. If equilibrium climate sensitivity is 3°C or greater for a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration, then most of the expected warming attributable to trace gases added to the atmosphere by man probably has not yet occurred. This yet to be realized warming calls into question a policy of "wait and see" regarding the issue of how to deal with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Science 30 August 1985: Vol. 229. no. 4716, pp. 857 - 859(SOURCE)

 

[David Gould]

grmorton,

One thing that I have been surprised about in reading this thread is your dismissal of statistical analysis of data. May I inquire as to the reason that you do so? From my understanding - I am studying statistics at the moment - you cannot come to any scientifically valid conclusions about data without undertaking statistical analysis of that data. Or is it that you disagree with the particular statistical analyses carried out in this thread?

 

[grmorton]

I told you where I got my data from: GISS and UAH. As I cannot see your graphs, can you tell me what temperature increase you get for a doubling of CO2? Is it within the predicted range?

How do you post picture?

As to a physics degree, no, I do not have one. No degree at all, actually. But temperature response is not instantaneous, not even in a car.

Agreed, but then neither is the speed of light instantaneous.

As to you being 'nutty' I do not think I have called you that. The thing is, though, that NOAA and GISS and Hadley and so forth are all aware of these issues. This is why they do not simply use raw temperature data.

OK, It seems that our difference is that you think the raw data from Happy Camp, the place with 20 air conditioners can be corrected successful. Tell me in DETAIL how you correct the Happy Camp temperature stream.

It seems to me that first you need to know WHEN the air conditioners are on. WHICH air conditioners are on, WHICH way the local wind in between the buildings is blowing, HOW many air conditioners are on, before you could begin to build a reasonable model for what the impact of these air conditioners are so that you could remove it. And you would have to have several experimental studies of turning on various air conditioners in various wind conditions and to get a controlled set of information to know how large the influence is.

None of the above information or experiments have been done. You don't know WHEN they were on, WHICH were on, WHERE the wind blows, HOW many air conditioners are on at any given time. There are NO records kept of this information.

Therefore any correction you would make comes out from your backside where the sun don't shine!

And you guys think I am nutso whether you used the word or not.

DAve, I haven't resorted to conspiracy theories other than to note that in any organization one gets what one rewards. If you know that your boss gives the biggest raises to the liar in the group, everyone will tend to start twisting the truth to get the biggest raise. That, unfortunately is human nature and any book on leadership will tell you that that is what happens.

If you can't get funding, as Spencer and a few other climatologists skeptical of AGW have found, then young people won't challenge and it becomes a feedback loop--play the game to get the money or you won't get the money or the tenure. If you knew anything about leading an organization you would know that in that situation you will get exactly what you reward.

Shoot you can see it in societies which give extra money to poor women who have more babies. What do you get? More babies in poor families than were in those of the previous generation.

 

[grmorton]

Hmmm, I will have to obviously defer to the guy with the physics degree who has published in atmospheric radiative transfer, but why would I assume that a mass of any gas or any material would achieve a given equilibrium temperature nearly instantaneously?

Isn't it intersting Thau how you all tell me to listen to the climatologist who know better than I. But then when the tables are turned you don't want to do it. As to my question, I merely wanted to know what his qualifications were for his question. It doesn't automatically mean he is wrong.

But you seem to want me to listen to experts when it favors your position but then you don't do it when it doesn't. Interesting hypocrisy.

Isn't there some transfer of energy going on from the CO2 to the other gases in the atmosphere? The entire atmosphere isn't all CO2 molecules, or all greenhouse gases for that matter, it is a mass of other gases which don't all necessarily absorb in the IR. Which means it must transfer some of that energy to the bulk of the atmosphere.

Of course, there is energy transfer, that is why the ENTIRE atmosphere will heat with an increase in CO2. But the problem is the AMOUNT of heating that comes with a particular amount of CO2. Clearly the IPCC from my graphs shows that they are over-estimating the amount of heating. The sensitivity (deg rise per doubling) is not very well known. Why? Because there are feedback loops in the atmosphere that counteract the effect of a rising CO2.

Why would any of this occur "at the speed of light"?

Because that is the speed that infrared radiation moves. If you put more CO2 into the atmosphere it will block the outgoing IR at that speed. Now, The thing that David Gould didn't understand was that the equilibrium temperature depends not on CO2 but on rate of inflow of the energy vs the rate of exit. When you roll your windows up in the car the temperature doesn't rise instantly, but the blockage of the exiting energy IS at the speed of light. As more sunlight (visible) pours into the car, more energy is trapped until the temperature rises enough to cause the material in the car is hot enough to emit sufficient quantities of energy in frequencies which are NOT blocked by the windows. That is why the temperature of the car rises.

This temperature rise is rapid, very rapid, not 50 years in duration. Which is why I find it silly that in 75 years the US hasn't exceeded the 1934 temperature yet we have 1/3 more CO2, 1/3 more blockage which should cause the temperature to rise even higher than that year occasionally. Yet it hasn't.

If I put water in a microwave (where it will absorb microwave radiation) it doesn't all get to the same temperature instantaneously.

Why would the atmosphere?

If the absorption of microwave is uniform in the water, meaning that the outer layers of the water don't shield the inner layers, then yes it will all get to the same temperature very rapidly (not instantly) but for all practical purposes the speed of light over the distance of a microwave can be called 'instantly'. If you arrange the shape of the pan to avoid shielding, then yes every where will rise in temperature at the same rate.

You haven't done the experiment of that I am sure.

 

[thaumaturgy]

OK, It seems that our difference is that you think the raw data from Happy Camp, the place with 20 air conditioners can be corrected successful. Tell me in DETAIL how you correct the Happy Camp temperature stream.

It seems to me that first you need to know WHEN the air conditioners are on. WHICH air conditioners are on, WHICH way the local wind in between the buildings is blowing, HOW many air conditioners are on

All of this detail may not need to be known. In an ideal world (where people measure everything to perfect precision with no errors) that would be a good idea to know all that.

But that isn't the reality we all live in today.

In fact the fact that there are 20 ac units in that space means that point in the grid will be biased high. And should be removed, however if it isn't it may not destroy the whole data set.

But the fact is, that it will be gridded and averaged with many, many other data points in the area.

I made up a block of 100 data stations. They are measuring a temperature. If I have 100 stations and they are set up to have a mean = 80degF and a standard deviation of 6 and then I take that exact same data set and add 5 degrees to 8% of them (that's 8 stations that have a +5 degree bias) and then I compare the means calculated by these two very similar distributions this is what I get:

Now the important thing to note is that in this 100 data set sample you cannot statistically differentiate the population with and the populationwithout the added 5deg bias. That's what the little p-value tells you.

AND, further, this is a single-tailed t-test so the bar is set a bit lower to detect a difference! I knew it would add a bias, so I only tested to see if Mean2-Mean1>0!

This is the power of dealing with the data statistically rather than merely trying to interpret the noise as signal.

 

[David Gould]

grmorton,

No idea how it is done in detail. Likewise, I have no idea of the detail of how corrections are made to radiocarbon dating when there has been contamination from other sources. But I trust that the experts know what they are doing.

It seems to me that you believe that, while the experts are well aware of the issues around air-conditioners, the UHI effect and other things to do with changes over the past century, they either:

1.) wrongly believe that they can take steps to reduce the uncertainties sufficiently; or
2.) have no idea what steps to take and are therefore fudging it.

Now, there may be other options that I have not considered. If you think something else, let me know.

However, if you hold poisition 1, can you explain what steps you have taken to show that the belief of these scientists is incorrect? After all, if you are asking me what detailed method they use, that implies that you do not know it. As such, how can I accept the critique that you are making of it when you do not know what it is?

As you have said that you do not believe in conspiracy theories, I have to assume that 2.) is not your position, either.

 

[David Gould]

grmorton,

Have you looked at my graphs yet? And could you post the values you get for the temperature increase per doubling from your graphs? I am assuming from your statements that they are below the 1.5 degrees per doubling that is the edge of the range predicted by the IPCC, as you have said that your graphs show that the warming has been below IPCC predictions. I want to see if that assertion is correct, however. (I do not think it can be, as my graphs show that the real world is matching predictions, but I could be wrong.)

 

[David Gould]

grmorton,

thaumaturgy has posted yet another nice statistical analysis that shows how the problems that you have cited make no difference to the overall picture. Do you disagree with his statistical methodology? If so, can you post the equations/calculations that you are using that demonstrates the above statistical analysis is in error?

 

[David Gould]

Regarding temperature response, I still cannot see how the temperature increase moves at the speed of light.

 

[David Gould]

Regarding temperature response, I still cannot see how the temperature increase moves at the speed of light.

 

[David Gould]

Regarding temperature response, I still cannot see how the temperature increase moves at the speed of light.

 

[grmorton]

I am having to reload all my software on my new hard drive. I will try to catch up on all the posts in tomorrow and the next day. Disk crashes are bad, but Dell finally got me a good back up OS disk.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Regarding temperature response, I still cannot see how the temperature increase moves at the speed of light.

I too have been having trouble with Glenn's reasoning on this one.

Temperature is a measure of the energy of the entire system (atmosphere), and hence contains not only effects from the excitation of the C=O bonds by IR but also the quenching of this as energy is transmitted to non-absorptive molecules. In addition there's obviously feedbacks related to albedo etc.

The fact that the atmosphere or zones within the atmosphere have a specific temperature is anything but "near the speed of light" in terms of response.

Again, just irradiating those molecules in the air with whatever radiation they resonate at will not cause the entire air mass to take on that temperature. Especially when only some of the molecules will resonate with the incoming radiation.

But this, I sense, is veering off again into statistical mechanis (LINK)(LINK) and that doesn't set well with some on here.

Isn't it time for some more air-conditioner pictures?

 

[David Gould]

test

 

[David Gould]

grmorton,

On the graphs of temperature versus CO2, personally I find the excellent match between the temperature data and predicted warming due to CO2 since 1880 in the case of GISS and 1850 in the case of Hadley as one of the most powerful pieces of evidence that AGW is real and that we have the science nailed down relatively well. So, if you can demonstrate that the warming since 1958 falls below the predicted ranges, that would indeed be a powerful argument against AGW.

I do not think that it can be done, given that I have looked at all the major datasets and graphed them against the natural logarithm of CO2 concentrations and all show warming in the predicted range. I may have done the graphs wrong, of course. Hopefully, you can show me if I have.

 

[thaumaturgy]

CRITICALITY OF STATISTICS TO THIS DISCUSSION:

Well, we've heard Glenn's non-stop diatribe against relying on statistics and at the same time I've been reading more and more of the various peer-reviewed (ie "serious") journal articles around the global climate change temperature measurement topics and so far just about every one of these journal articles that I've read relies (often rather heavily) on robust statistical treatment of the data.

Here's yet another one:
Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

Note while reading through this how much detail is expended on the standard error terms.

In order to deal with the data in this discussion clearly avoiding statistics will only serve to forward "agendas" and is clearly not in line with how data is treated in the debates around "temperature measurements".

If Glenn has a problem with temperature measurements he will have to demonstrate it robustly via error terms (as they are actually dealt with)

 

[David Gould]

thaumaturgy,

Agreed. I once read that about 2/3 of physics is working out the error terms for data.

 

[David Gould]

grmorton,

Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct, and that the temperature data that we have is completely worthless.

What do you make of the rapid melting in the arctic?
What do you make of the worldwide retreat of glaciers?
What do you make of ice mass loss in the west antarctic ice sheet?
What do you make of the observed changes around the world in species range, breeding cycles and migration cycles?

Wouldn't you say that these are all evidence that the earth is warming?
Given that many of these changes are happening very rapidly, wouldn't you say that that is evidence that the earth's temperature is rising rapidly?

Assuming that we agree on that point (big assumption), we have a theory that explains such rapid warming - AGW via CO2 emissions. No other current theory explains the data. So .... You get where I am going with this.

 

[thaumaturgy]

thaumaturgy,

Agreed. I once read that about 2/3 of physics is working out the error terms for data.

What I've found is that in any science in which observation is a key, the error terms are of great importance. Recently I have been tutoring high school AP chemistry students and the first things they are going over is the %error of their measurements.

They usually don't get deep into statistics, and even I didn't like stats when I first took it. It was years before realized the value of statistical robustness of assessing my data.

I'm still on the learning curve with a long way to go, but I am enjoying these sorts of discussions precisely because they give me more "real world" applications of statistics.

I'm still fascinated by the detailed subtleties in statistics. Some of which I still miss. In the earlier discussion of the confidence interval it is interesting to note the subtle differences that come into play. In my earlier posts I actually oversimplified the calculation for the confidence interval (which is an error of sorts in that it glosses over some important but small distinctions since I failed to clearly differentiate between population and sample standard deviation):

In reality if we know the population standard deviation the confidence interval becomes

+Z*stdev[sub]population[/sub]/sqrt(N) and Z for this case is 1.96

But if we are working with an unknown population standard deviation but we know the sample standard deviation the confidence interval is

+t * stdev[sub]sample[/sub]/sqrt(N) (I've also seen "sqrt(N-1)" in the denominator as well), but for large enough samples the critical t-value can be very close to 1.96.

In reading over this Brohan et al., paper I referenced earlier I am greatly enjoying his description of the various error terms.

He cites a 2001 study in which it is estimated that the "random error in a single thermometer reading" is about 0.2[sup]o[/sup]C which in this case he is defining as 1 standard deviation. If the monthly average of at least 2 measurements/day results in 60 "observations" the standard error on the mean should work out to be 0.2/sqrt(60) = 0.03[sup]o[/sup]C. And owing to it's random nature should be uncorrelated with the value of any other station.

The power of being able to make inferences that are less constricted by the standard deviation is of immense value, especially when we are working with rather large data sets.

It's actually quite disingenuous of me to take Glenn to task for not being acquainted with statistics. It wasn't but a few years back that I had no interest whatsoever in stats. I've only gotten really interested in stats in the past couple years, in no small part because I'm taking my science more seriously and realizing the importance of fully appreciating the errors.

 

[grmorton]

I too have been having trouble with Glenn's reasoning on this one.

Let me try again. The blocking of the energy leaving via radiation happens at the speed of light. You roll your window up in the car and the minute the car windows are up, heat can't escape. As more visible light pours into the car and is converted to IR (which can't get through the windows), the inside of the car heats up. This makes the spectrum of light emitted move to shorter (hotter) wavelengths.

I apologize for the size of the picture but I am still not up and running fully, still trying to move data back onto my new hard drive and maybe tonight I will have Microsoft office re-loaded and then I might be able to shrink the size of the pictures.

Note that as the temperature rises, the wavelength gets shorter (frequency higher) As the peak wavelength gets shorter, more and more of the energy can escape through the window. This is the same thing that happens with CO2. With 1/3 more CO2 in the atmosphere today than we had in 1934 we should feel the increase temperature within days of its insertion into the atmosphere. So, we should see the effect all the way up.

Temperature is a measure of the energy of the entire system (atmosphere), and hence contains not only effects from the excitation of the C=O bonds by IR but also the quenching of this as energy is transmitted to non-absorptive molecules. In addition there's obviously feedbacks related to albedo etc.

The fact that the atmosphere or zones within the atmosphere have a specific temperature is anything but "near the speed of light" in terms of response.

Sometimes explaining physics to non-physicists is tough. And probably I could have been clearer.

Again, just irradiating those molecules in the air with whatever radiation they resonate at will not cause the entire air mass to take on that temperature. Especially when only some of the molecules will resonate with the incoming radiation.[/quqote]

This is wrong. Molecular vibrations get equipartitioned throughout the atmosphere very quickly.

As to air conditioner pictures, if you wanted to take your child's temperature as the swine flu comes round, are you going to stick the thermometer next to a match and then read it off for the doctor???? How stupid that would be, yet that is what you are being when you mock the air conditioner pictures. It is as if you think a match next to your child's thermometer will help the doctor know what to do.

I will go back and see about some of the previous posts. I doubt I will get far tonight.