quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
So you have no comment on the observations, and choose not to present observations of your own.

I don't have comments not on the observations, but on the claim that they are explained by CO2. But if you really want me to comment, then here it goes.

What you have is: IF (A) THEN (B). The statement A here is: Such-and-such theories of CO2-driven heating are true. The statement B is: Such-and-such observation obtains. However, it doesn't mean that IF (B) THEN (A). As a matter of fact, no scientific theory can be absolutely proven; it can only be trusted to a certain degree, until falsified by a new observation. I would have been inclined to trust the CO2 theory if I saw experimental basis behind it. As it is, however, I only see evidence to the contrary.

A word of caution on use of statistical data. What we have, for the most part, are the results of passive observation. Controlled experiments are surprisingly few. When a theoretical model has so many parameters that they can be tweaked to fit the theory to almost any data curve, one mustn't put too much trust into the "explanations" of the kind discussed above. Instead, more value must be placed on controlled experiments.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
In terms of it's ability to explain the 0.2degC/decade warming of the last 30 years, your hypothesis seems to me to have no observational backup.

Which as I said earlier has been the case with the others I have encountered who support this hypothesis.

Umm, I don't recall claiming to produce an all-explaining theory. My post was, more or less, along the lines of: I'm not certain if the study referenced in this thread's opening post takes into account the effect of geomagnetic storms. Of course, I do not have much observational backup. I'm not a scientist working in the related areas. Nor do the scientists that do work there have been given grants to conduct the relevant research (as reflected in the second part of the quote above). Perhaps, they should have been.

The CO2 theory, on the contrary, claims to be THE solution to all our climate woes. So the onus to confirm it is on you, my friend.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
Meanwhile, why repeat Angstrom's experiments when the theoretical basis for the warming of CO2 has moved beyond that? Given CO2's use in devices like Lasers, given the measurement of CO2 concentration by IR absorption, it's evident that the physics has moved beyond Angstrom's early work (which is not to dismiss it). And any flaw impacting CO2's effect on IR would surely be apparent in the wider uses to which the theory is now put.

No theory, however plausible and beautiful, can replace experiment. There can be no science without scientific method, and there is no scientific method (the observation-hypothesis-experiment-observation loop) without experiment. Any time you hear claims that a theory has moved beyond an experiment to justify not verifying it any longer, know that it means the theory has "moved beyond"--and right out of--the realm of science.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
The atmospheric profile developes in a "relativistic" manner, it can be modelled in an illustrative sense by a simple model of isothermal layers. Above the boundary layer, where convection is the main means of energy transfer on short time-scales, in the free troposphere radiation at IR can play a role. So even though more CO2 may have negligible effect at sea level temperature and pressure, the enhanced greenhouse effect further up in the troposphere can still impact temperatures below. And the evidence shows that this effect is amplified by water vapour changes in response to the effect of CO2.

I trust you know that isothermal layers are vertical. Do you mean the boundary layer between the troposphere and the stratosphere? The latter, indeed, doesn't encourage convection, because of its temperature profile (rising with height). In other words, the stratosphere is in a relative dynamic equilibrium. But, should any global change occur beneath it, that equilibrium would have to be reestablished. As the troposphere expands, the stratosphere rises with it. At any given height, the temperature therefore drops, because the air is replaced by a colder one rising from beneath. But this stratospheric cooling is deceptive, because the stratosphere moved, and the average temperature rises from the troposphere through the stratosphere into the upper atmosphere, where the extra heat is inevitably lost.

Not to mention that it is really the upper atmosphere--and not the upper troposphere--where CO2 absorption is not saturated. It wasn't experimentally verified until space satellites went flying.

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:
[...] But this stratospheric cooling is deceptive, because the stratosphere moved, and the average temperature rises from the troposphere through the stratosphere into the upper atmosphere, where the extra heat is inevitably lost.

Sorry, my language has been imprecise and can be easily misinterpreted. In the quote above, read heat transfer instead of rise of the average temperature, but as heat transfer. But then, you know what I meant.

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by M Batchelor:
This headline is from an article from the Guardian, which claims evidence to be published in a Royal Society journal, shows that the current GW could not be caused by solar activity. It says that this is a direct response to debunk the idea of solar driven GW put forward by the programme - the Great Global Warming Swindle.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2119695,00.html

Does anyone agree with this study - or are the paper's findings not potentially biased if, as the Guardian article states, it was "carried out...to directly challenge the claims made in the Channel 4 programme"?

It's in the news now. Anyone know the link to the pdf?

Cheers

mike

In pre-industrial times, Prof Lockwood said, there was considerable evidence that the sun played a significant role in driving global climate, but he was concerned this genuine area of study had been done a "great disservice" by climate sceptics who were trying to confuse people about recent global warming.

He said: "I know we're attacking a bit of a strawman here because there is no serious scientific debate about recent warming, but those who disagree are very vocal. We wrote this up specifically to show they are wrong, and wrong in a dangerous way."

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/

All the text in the above post should have been in quotes as it came from the aformentioned Grauniad website.

In any respect he link to the article/pdf can be found from the "publishings" page on the RSoc website.

Heavens knows why I'm helping "you lot out"

I must be really bored!!!

Unfortunately when you read right from the horses mouth that a specific piece of research was done just to debunk another you know that all objectivity has been thrown out of the window.

CobbleyWorld, Steve_M or John_M

In the attached CRU graphs of Temperature anomoly

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

why is there a more intense negative effect in the southern hemisphere than the north between 1940 and 1980 as I'd understood that sulphur aerosols were the prime cooling agent then yet most of these were emitted in the northern hemisphere? I'd have judged from this that they had an overall warming effect.

Leokor,

I don't claim that CO2 focing is the only factor, it's just the major factor. And I clearly state that the isothermal layer model of the troposphere is "illustrative".

Isothermal layers vertical???
Iso-thermal merely implies "at the same temperature", the illustrative model used in first year meteorology courses uses horizontal layers. At least it does in the MIT course notes (and the other course notes) I've downloaded.


"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Feynman.

In this case experiment is occurring in the real world as we increase CO2 (or for you as Magnetic flux changes), it's the observational evidence from the real world that I am interested in. I'm not convinced about the observational backup to your hypothesis. Until you provide that I have nothing more to say on this matter Leokor.

Regards

Cobbly

quote:

Originally posted by Mubbers:
All the text in the above post should have been in quotes as it came from the aformentioned Grauniad website.

In any respect he link to the article/pdf can be found from the "publishings" page on the RSoc website.

Heavens knows why I'm helping "you lot out"

I must be really bored!!!

Unfortunately when you read right from the horses mouth that a specific piece of research was done just to debunk another you know that all objectivity has been thrown out of the window.

I don't know about "objectivity" but I agree that this should not have been necessary. The evidence has been out there and well established for some time.

I suppose it shows how effective TGGWS and the "denier industry" in general has been.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
Isothermal layers vertical???
Iso-thermal merely implies "at the same temperature", the illustrative model used in first year meteorology courses uses horizontal layers. At least it does in the MIT course notes (and the other course notes) I've downloaded.

Isothermal layers are vertical columns of air that have the same temperature at any height. They are interesting because they're stable to vertical convection. There is a plenty of more detailed information on the web. For example:

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/269/

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
In this case experiment is occurring in the real world as we increase CO2 (or for you as Magnetic flux changes), it's the observational evidence from the real world that I am interested in. I'm not convinced about the observational backup to your hypothesis. Until you provide that I have nothing more to say on this matter Leokor.

Isolate the variables, and then you'd have an experiment. If I tell you that CO2 increase in the upper atmosphere doesn't matter because it's open to space, then design an experiment that takes ONLY these factors into account, to prove me wrong.

As it stands, there is a plenty of observational evidence regarding the role geomagnetic storms play in climate. It just hasn't been applied to the global warming issue, as far as I know. I don't have time to go collating it, either; it's not my job. I've pointed out that this variable has not been accounted for, and that is it. Go and account for it, please.

Leo

Leokor,

Isothermal Layer? We're talking at cross purposes.

Google "paoc mit chapter" (without the quotes) the first link should be an html page headed "12.003 Notes". Section 2.3 of Chapter 2 discusses the illustrative model I am talking about. The layers are integrated in the calculation, so in the limit the layers are infinitely small. Note that I used the plural. The model uses layers at the same temperature (iso- equal/uniform).

The phenomena your page desrcibes: I thought it was described as an "isothermal column" to denote it's vertical structure.

A quick Google and this was on the same page, with yours at the top.
"The term "isothermal layer" is slightly misleading, inasmuch as it appears to produce the conception of a definite stratum of uniform temperature lying between two regions where the temperature decreases at a rate approximately adiabatic." From here in a footnote at the bottom of that page. I can't account for your page, strata are horizontal.

Anyway, we were talking about different things.


Sorry, I still think if you have a working theory it should be able to explain observations.

Certainly before I will invest what can be a lot of time examining a hypothesis pertaining to a phenomenon I want evidence that it can explain aspects of the phenomena. If I'm plotting a path profile for a radio link I don't include gravity or wind conditions, because neither have a signicant effect.

Bye

Cobbly.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
Isothermal Layer? We're talking at cross purposes.

OK, I see that now.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
Google "paoc mit chapter" (without the quotes) the first link should be an html page headed "12.003 Notes". Section 2.3 of Chapter 2 discusses the illustrative model I am talking about. The layers are integrated in the calculation, so in the limit the layers are infinitely small. Note that I used the plural. The model uses layers at the same temperature (iso- equal/uniform).

Very well. Let me summarize what that section describes. A very simple model of atmosphere is considered, as a first approximation, before it is elaborated further by adding more complexity in later chapters. In this model, it is assumed that infrared absorption is saturated below a certain level; the atmosphere beneath that layer is opaque to the infrared radiation. It is also assumed that the atmosphere above that layer is transparent to that radiation.

Given those assumptions, the layer describe above, therefore, absorbs all infrared radiation from the Sun: the atmosphere above doesn't absorb any, and the atmosphere below doesn't get any, at least directly from the Sun. That layer emits half of the absorbed energy back into space, and the other half down to Earth. Later in the same section, the assumptions are relaxed, requiring the use of multiple layers. But the picture is basically the same.

Can't argue with that. This is the simplest explanation of how the atmosphere retains some of the heat that it receives from the Sun; if it didn't, we'd have frozen to death. But would it retain more heat if more CO2 were added? The model doesn't say. Admittedly, it is a toy model, serving as an introduction. But what it really amounts to is a greenhouse with a ceiling. Yes, that layer serves as a ceiling. This is exactly what happens in such a greenhouse. And it works only because it doesn't account for convection. In the real world, the air actually moves. The layers of air having the same temperature can always be traced (naturally!), but they wouldn't stay in place. They may rise, or be blown away, or even fold onto themselves.

The layer used in that toy model is merely an abstraction. There is no physical substance behind such layers, not any more than magnetic field lines do, or the topographic lines that mark the same height. This abstraction is only useful as a very basic illustration of how the atmosphere retains heat. But it is not useful for understanding how the amount of the retained heat changes when various conditions change (that is, what we're actually debating here). Nor is it useful for any calculations; it is a qualitative illustration only, for freshman courses. Science has moved way beyond that.

Even the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere is not fixed in place, you know (nor is it actually well-defined). As I described in my posts above, the stratosphere may rise on the troposphere's shoulders (figuratively speaking), if the latter expands. The top, hottest stratospheric layers rise too, and the mesosphere above it absorbs the extra heat, expanding itself. The end result is the same: the extra heat eventually reaches the open space, where it is lost radiatively into space or via the ionosphere's interaction with the solar wind. By then, it's not even carried by molecules, CO2 or otherwise, but ions.

There is no ceiling.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
A quick Google and this was on the same page, with yours at the top.
"The term "isothermal layer" is slightly misleading, inasmuch as it appears to produce the conception of a definite stratum of uniform temperature lying between two regions where the temperature decreases at a rate approximately adiabatic." From here in a footnote at the bottom of that page. I can't account for your page, strata are horizontal.

Exactly as I said above. It is misleading to think of such a layer as an actual physical, definine stratum of air. (Unlike a vertical isothermal layer, which actually comprises a real, well-defined volume of air, and not an abstraction.)

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
Sorry, I still think if you have a working theory it should be able to explain observations.

Certainly before I will invest what can be a lot of time examining a hypothesis pertaining to a phenomenon I want evidence that it can explain aspects of the phenomena. If I'm plotting a path profile for a radio link I don't include gravity or wind conditions, because neither have a signicant effect.

No, I don't have a working theory. But I do have a reasonable cause to bring geomagnetic storms into the picture. They do heat the atmosphere. They have been rising in strength for some time. And then, there is the matter of global warming on other planets to explain, from Mars to Neptune (heck, even Pluto seems to be warming up).

Some of that has already been discussed in the "Greenhouse it ain't" thread:

http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/9250037634

Feel free to take a look. I'm loathe to repeat myself.

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:
My post was, more or less, along the lines of: I'm not certain if the study referenced in this thread's opening post takes into account the effect of geomagnetic storms.

Also it ignores the depleted ozone as a possible explanation of a greater effect of the sun's radiation. I need to look into this more but it seems quite important to me.

quote:

Originally posted by APL:
Also it ignores the depleted ozone as a possible explanation of a greater effect of the sun's radiation. I need to look into this more but it seems quite important to me.

Quite possible. By the way, ozone depletion may be caused (or greatly enhanced) by geomagnetic storms, too. There is a reason why the ozone hole is in Antarctica:

http://www.esa-spaceweather.net/spweather/workshops/esww/proc/brekke_stoa5.pdf

Leo

For anyone who's interested.

The Lockwood/Frohlich Royal Society answer to claims of Solar influence involvement in the recent warming is available here, direct from the Royal Society.

quote:

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century.

Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
For anyone who's interested.

The Lockwood/Frohlich Royal Society answer to claims of Solar influence involvement in the recent warming is available here, direct from the Royal Society.

Thanks. I'll have a look.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
For anyone who's interested.

The Lockwood/Frohlich Royal Society answer to claims of Solar influence involvement in the recent warming is available here, direct from the Royal Society.

Thanks. I'll have a look.

Thanks as well CW.

No problem, when I went looking it seems like I'd have to pay for it. But now they've set up that link.

Thanks for the comments.

Dr David Whitehouse, an astronomer who has studies solar activity for years has written an article in the Daily Telegraph debunking the Royal Societies findings.

He writes:

"The research could prove the contrary. Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion...

The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve.

It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger.

So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled. A coincid-ence, certainly: a connection, possibly.

My own view on the theory that greenhouse gases are driving climate change is that it is a good working hypothesis - but, because I have studied the sun, I am not completely convinced."

The truth is, we can't ignore the sun
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opin...007/07/15/do1508.xml

I suppose the GW supporters here will tell me he is funded by oil companies. However, how can they deny that he argument does make sense?

quote:

The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did.

GISS doesn't support that. GHCN does to an extent, CRU shows a distinct levelling.

But both CRU and GHCN use hemisphere averaging, whilst GISS uses grid box averaging. The GISS method is less impacted by the slower warming rate of the Southern Hemisphere.


Actually, let's just see what happens shall we?

I've wasted enough time on this subject.

CobblyWorld

quote:

Actually, let's just see what happens shall we?

Ok let's put Kyoto on hold.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
I've wasted enough time on this subject.

We may be able to reach a consensus on that.