Maggie's Farm

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." — Stephen Colbert

Too bad the climate scientists you regularly tout (along with their attendant apocalyptic predictions and economy-wrecking mitigation schemes) failed to include (or include properly) the "reality" of the oceans, clouds, etc. in their models.

Liberals seem quite content to accept incomplete science as "settled science" when it aligns with their worldview.

You continue to beclown yourself: the models were either wrong or incomplete and thus do not match the "reality" (17 years of essentially flat surface temperatures) you and those of your ilk claim to "grasp".

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." — George E. P. Box

The models you've been touting have been both wrong and less than useful, despite the ad hoc patches you make to them.

You've been clamoring for months now that the "science is settled" and yet you've invoked - after the fact - the oceans as heat sinks to "explain" ("excuse", actually) the widely quoted fact (you go look it up) that the surface temperatures have not gone up in the way you and others were guaranteeing only months ago. The oceans that you and others haven't said dick about (or whose modeling was implied to be "settled") are now invoked to rescue your "The End is Near!! Repent!!" claim. Goal-post moving in perpetuity.

Yes, models are adjusted to fit the data, but the adjustments you tout - mysteriously - always support an already-arrived-at conclusion (arrived at without all of the facts or in spite of them): apocalyptic man-made warming that must be remedied via economically costly socialist measures. It seems that you and other Warmists are continually working backwards from this conclusion. Circular reasoning at its finest: you believe the conclusion (and in all of the measures required to "remedy" it) so fervently that you assume it in all of your (daily changing) premises. It's not science, it's dissembling (I owe Buddy Larsen a beer for using "dissembling").

"Can you provide a scientific citation? Have you considered the scientific response to your claim?"

You first: please enlighten me in your own words (your very own, "scientific response", if you will) as to how "modern models" incorporate clouds, the oceans and solar output and variability in a physically valid climate model. I've been lurking here for several years and have noticed that you have no problem posting a lot of comments, that you seem to have the time to burn. Well, instead of spouting "Arrhenius", "monotonic", quoting comedians in regards to their take on "reality" and engaging folks in "dueling citations", why don't you sketch out - in your own words - a model of the earth that properly - even if simply - incorporates the physics of climate.

In other words, show me your physics, math and modeling chops - even if only at the order of magnitude level (which physical effects must be included in the "Zachriel climate model" and which can be safely ignored?) and, if you survive, we can then get on to the subtleties of various research works in the climate field.

Please argue your point - somewhere beyond shouting "Arrhenius" and shy of running a supercomputer climate model simulation.

"Um, no. Climate science is an active field of research, so we wouldn't use that phrasing."

---

Bullshit: "active" in your parlance means research that continues to confirm a politically-motivated a priori conclusion that is as of yet unsupported by the data - research that contradicts warming is brutally suppressed in a distinctly non-scientific manner ("hide the decline", bullying, etc.).

And didn't you recently try to draw an analogy between climate research and quantum mechanics in regards to both being basically "settled" but involving ongoing research? As if. Only a non-scientist would make such argument, would attempt to compare something so nailed down like quantum mechanics to studies of many, many degrees of freedom systems like those contributing to the earth's climate. Only a simpleton would consider climate study as having anywhere the same degree of certainty and refinement as quantum mechanics (quantum electrodynamics provides predictions good to ten parts in a billion when compared with what is observed - go ahead and show similar awesomeness in any climate predictions. C'mon, let's see 'em!!).

---

"The oceans have heated. Climate theory does not "guarantee" a monotonic increase in temperature."

---

You clearly don't know what you are talking about: ANY signal buried in noise will be non-monotonic. It's the temperature trend that is important and the trend is basically flat over the past 17 years, despite more and more CO2 pumped into the atmosphere.

---

"Bill Carson: The oceans that you and others haven't said dick about...

Huh? The World Ocean Circulation Experiment dates to the 1990s, and has recently been updated with ARGO deployment starting in the early 2000s.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/Origins_of_Argo.html"

I also wrote: "(or whose modeling was implied to be "settled")". Pick your poison: either the oceans weren't included in the modeling or they were modeled improperly, negating the unwarranted certainty about "guaranteed" increases in surface temperatures.

"Bill Carson: why don't you sketch out - in your own words - a model of the earth that properly - even if simply - incorporates the physics of climate.

The most direct evidence is the warming surface and lower atmosphere along with a cooling stratosphere, a signature of greenhouse warming."

You left out warming oceans and stalled surface warming.

And - on cue - you've failed to make an argument in the form I've requested, instead only producing "evidence" (vague at that) stemming from/supporting an argument you've failed to make.

If you really understood this stuff you'd humor me and explain it in a basic way, but you didn't, because you can't.

Run along now and parse out more verbiage from climate research articles that you can cite (but don't understand) as "proof" of anthropogenic global warming.

P.S. One last chance to exhibit entry-level proficiency in things you've been spouting off as if an expert: By what percentage would the sun's luminosity have to increase to increase the temperature of the earth - modeled as a spherical blackbody with no atmosphere on a spherical orbit about the sun - by one degree Celsius? Please show your work.

"Bill Carson: research that contradicts warming is brutally suppressed in a distinctly non-scientific manner ("hide the decline", bullying, etc.).

Sorry, in science, being criticized for your views is not "brutal". "
---

That's why folks who are critical of Warmist research have to file FOIA and FOIA-like petitions to gain access to those researchers' data and algorithms, because the latter can handle criticism. "Science(tm)". Gotcha.

---

Bill Carson: And didn't you recently try to draw an analogy between climate research and quantum mechanics in regards to both being basically "settled" but involving ongoing research?

We explained why "settled" is not the best term to use. It implies stasis.

---

False research "dynamism", premised/centered upon on the static, unassailable idea that the recent surface warming we've seen is primarily anthropogenic seems to be a goal for some.

---

Bill Carson: Only a non-scientist would make such argument, would attempt to compare something so nailed down like quantum mechanics to studies of many, many degrees of freedom systems like those contributing to the earth's climate.

That's silly. It was an example. Climate science is not nearly as certain as quantum physics.

Bill Carson: Only a simpleton would ...

Only a simpleton, or someone trying hard not to understand, would confuse a simple analogy with an assertion of equivalence.

---

Look, dude, ... in jest, in being simple, in being whatever, no one who knows anything about quantum mechanics and complex systems would ever analogize between the two. So god-damned dumb the two should have never been mentioned in the same sentence, unless one was trying to snow someone whom they thought didn't know better. End of story.

---

Bill Carson: ANY signal buried in noise will be non-monotonic.

Yes, that's the point.

---

That was not the "point" - when the trend indicated continued surface warming you and the rest said, "See, global warming!!". When the trend flattened out (HadCRUT4, for example - plot 1995 - 2011 data):

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature,

then shouts of "non-monotonic" commenced to ring out from the rooftops. The profound lack of caution in regards to drawing conclusions (and a general lack of calls for restraint from the modelers) from a positive slope over 15 years' duration was curiously replaced by calls for caution in drawing any conclusions from little or no warming in the 15 subsequent years. And, "Look: OCEANS!!!" Not confidence-inspiring.

---

"Bill Carson: Pick your poison: either the oceans weren't included in the modeling or they were modeled improperly, negating the unwarranted certainty about "guaranteed" increases in surface temperatures.

Handwaving. Scientists have been actively investigating the climate effects of the oceans, contrary to your assertions. "

Not handwaving in the least - a "bottom line" assertion . To wit, the surface temperature predictions made by the proponents of an anthropocentric global warming explanation are all off, substantially:

Linear trends ...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png

Running 5-year averages ...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

Though perhaps I've been dwelling too much on non-existent or improper incorporation of ocean heat absorption into various climate models and not enough on how badly various esteemed climate modelers have dorked the pooch in regards to their predictions. You tell me.

---

"If we ignore the greenhouse effect, assume an albedo of 0.3, and that the system is in equilibrium, then the Earth's blackbody temperature is a chilly 255°K or so. According to Stefan–Boltzmann, temperature is related to the fourth root of solar luminosity, so an increase in solar luminosity of about 1½% would increase the temperature about 1°K.

However, the Earth isn't a blackbody. The greenhouse effect changes the surface temperature considerably, so instead of a chilly 255°K, the surface is a balmy 287°K. It's worth pointing out that an increase in solar luminosity of 1½% would likely increase the Earth's temperature more than 2°K. Do you know why?"

---

Hot damn! The "Arrhenius"-shouting Zachriel has been replaced by one with a better grasp of basic physics!

Good work on the earth's blackbody temperature; likewise on the solar luminosity bump required to increase the earth's temperature by 1 degree K (or Celsius).

No, the earth is not a blackbody and there is indeed a "greenhouse effect" that happily has us well above 255 K, but this exercise was intended to get us on to the subject of thermal equilibrium. Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that the derivative of absolute temperature with respect to solar luminosity, dT/dL, is proportional to 1/T^3, so the hotter a given blackbody is in this type of scenario, the less susceptible it is to temperature increases due to solar luminosity increases. That is, one should be able to put boundaries on the sensitivity of the earth's temperature to changes in solar luminosity, even in the case when the earth is more realistically modeled as something other than a blackbody.

As to why a 1.5% increase in solar luminosity would increase the surface temperature by more than 2 K, well, the earth isn't a blackbody, but the atmosphere emits radiation into space as one and the thermal equilibrium energy balance requirements at the boundaries (surface-atmosphere & atmosphere-space) force the surface temperature to be elevated above that for a blackbody without an atmosphere (the surface is irradiated equally by the sun and the atmosphere): i.e., the greenhouse effect. The resultant factor of 2 (and consequent multiplication of 2^.25) explains the 2 K increase given a 1.5% increase in solar luminosity. An additional consequence is that a planet with an atmosphere is, in general, less sensitive to temperature increases (by a factor of 1/2^.25) than the same planet taken to be a blackbody without an atmosphere.

---


Bill Carson: And - on cue - you've failed to make an argument in the form I've requested, instead only producing "evidence" (vague at that) stemming from/supporting an argument you've failed to make.

You asked for "- in your own words - a model of the earth that properly - even if simply - incorporates the physics of climate." We provided a very straightforward relationship between global warming and observation.

Do you understand why a warming surface and cooling stratosphere is considered a signature of greenhouse warming?

---

Yes, I do understand this (the greenhouse gases that help drive the heating lower in the atmosphere aid in the cooling higher up), but a signature of greenhouse warming is not automatically a signature of greenhouse warming driven by human activity. I haven't been disputing the existence of the greenhouse effect!! It's its cause that is still in question.

And finally, as pointed out above, most of the climate models (and acknowledging all of the hard work and intellect that went into them) suck (and badly). They predict surface temperature increases that have not been seen, unseen surface temperature increases that are to be fought via economically-crippling measures. Folks need to take a deep breath and sort out the physics (and statistics) before we voluntarily hamstring ourselves.