Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some math problems?

The paper was published in 2006.

Here is the full report. SAP 1.1 Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding & Reconciling Differences | GlobalChange.gov

2016-2006 = 10 years.

John Christy of UAH was one of the authors

[/QUOTE]

No math problem. I was basing my comment on the data in it. Having now looked at the whole paper, I accept that it was published in 2006.

But the important part is when it was finally published, it's a matter of what is the latest data used in drawing its conclusions.

The most recent data referenced anywhere in the full paper is 2004 and most of figures relevant to this discussion end in 1999.

2004 to 2016 = 12
1999 to 2016 = 17

So what point are you trying to make by emphasising that Christy was one of the authors? Is it relevant for me to point out that the Chief Editor was Tom Karl who was also responsible for the latest "pause busting" adjustments to the GISS data set.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

No cut and paste, just the data. RSS v two surface datasets.

Although your linked paper was dated 2004, all the relevant data and graphs ended in 1999. So here's the real "since then":

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

So where's the extra heat in the lower troposphere hiding?

For global averages, observed changes from 1958 through 2004 exhibit amplification: i.e., they
show greater warming trends in the troposphere compared with the surface.

Global-average temperature changes over the
periods 1958 through 2004 and 1979 through
2004 are shown in Figure 2 in degrees Celsius
and degrees Fahrenheit.

From the paper I posted. Contradicts at least two of your assertions.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So you are agreeing with Sherwood that the "hot spot"is irrelevant?

You should tell Reefmagnet and all the skeptics / deniers who think otherwise.

No, I'm not agreeing with him either about his wind derived temperatures or the significance of a hot spot.

But I do wonder why he has gone to so much trouble to find it if he thinks it isn't important

[StuM]

Quote:
For global averages, observed changes from 1958 through 2004 exhibit amplification: i.e., they
show greater warming trends in the troposphere compared with the surface.

Wow! And you accused me of contectomy and moral degeneracy!!!!

How about the rest of that paragraph:
"For global averages, observed changes from 1958 through 2004 exhibit amplification: i.e., they
show greater warming trends in the troposphere compared with the surface. Since 1979, however, the situation is different: most data sets show slightly greater warming at the surface."

What happened to surface temperatures through the 60s and 70s ? Any global warming in that period?

How about this: Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some math problems?

The paper was published in 2006.

Here is the full report. SAP 1.1 Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding & Reconciling Differences | GlobalChange.gov

2016-2006 = 10 years.

John Christy of UAH was one of the authors

I didn't see Christy's name on this one, but whatever. Rather than throwing out more obfuscation, and in an effort to simplify, do you agree or not agree that the UAH sat data has been recording a cooler temp trend than the surface data & the models?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

No, I'm not agreeing with him either about his wind derived temperatures or the significance of a hot spot.

But I do wonder why he has gone to so much trouble to find it if he thinks it isn't important

Because deniers think that the "missing" tropical hot spot is the smoking gun that disproves AGW.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I didn't see Christy's name on this one, but whatever. Rather than throwing out more obfuscation, and in an effort to simplify, do you agree or not agree that the UAH sat data has been recording a cooler temp trend than the surface data & the models?

Show me the data sets.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Quote:
For global averages, observed changes from 1958 through 2004 exhibit amplification: i.e., they
show greater warming trends in the troposphere compared with the surface.

Wow! And you accused me of contectomy and moral degeneracy!!!!

How about the rest of that paragraph:
"For global averages, observed changes from 1958 through 2004 exhibit amplification: i.e., they
show greater warming trends in the troposphere compared with the surface. Since 1979, however, the situation is different: most data sets show slightly greater warming at the surface."

What happened to surface temperatures through the 60s and 70s ? Any global warming in that period?

How about this: Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

That quote was to falsify your contention that the data ended in 1999.

The mid century cooling is well known and fairly well understood.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Show me the data sets.

I assume this means you do not agree, although you stated earlier that you accepted the UAH data. I'm not in a position to try and prove the validity of either one. I'm rather asking, if you know, how the data compares as reported by Christy & Spencer. If you believe the data is skewed or otherwise compromised, then that's a different issue which you've already provided support for.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I assume this means you do not agree, although you stated earlier that you accepted the UAH data. I'm not in a position to try and prove the validity of either one. I'm rather asking, if you know, how the data compares as reported by Christy & Spencer. If you believe the data is skewed or otherwise compromised, then that's a different issue which you've already provided support for.

It is your assertion. It requires your evidence.

[StuM]

Just been readinh JD's paper in a bit more detail. Interesting to note that Christie was not one of the authors of the critical Chapter for the current discussion:

"How well can the observed vertical
temperature changes be reconciled
with our understanding of the causes
of these changes?
Convening Lead Author: Benjamin D. Santer, DOE LLNL
Lead Authors: J.E. Penner, Univ. of MI; P.W. Thorne, U.K. Met. Office
Contributing Authors: W. Collins, NSF NCAR; K. Dixon, NOAA;
T.L. Delworth, NOAA; C. Doutriaux, DOE LLNL; C.K. Folland,
U.K. Met. Office; C.E. Forest, MIT; J.E. Hansen, NASA; J.R. Lanzante,
NOAA; G.A. Meehl, NSF NCAR; V. Ramaswamy, NOAA; D.J. Seidel,
NOAA; M.F. Wehner, DOE LBNL; T.M.L. Wigley, NSF NCAR"

Seems like a strange omission to me given his area of expertise.

A key point in Chapter 5:

"
• For longer-timescale temperature changes over 1979 to 1999, only one of four observed upper-air data sets has larger tropical warming aloft than in the surface records. All model runs with surface warming over this period show amplified warming aloft.
• These results could arise due to errors common to all models; to significant non-climatic influences remaining within some or all of the observational data sets, leading to biased long-term trend estimates; or a combination of these factors. "

So once again I ask the simple question which you have been assiduously avoiding:

Is it the models or the data sets that you have issues with? (Or is it, as suggested by your reference, both)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That quote was to falsify your contention that the data ended in 1999.

That was not my contention. I stated that the relevant data in the Summary to which you linked ended in 1999. The relevant data (for the purpose of the still avoided question about whether you have issues with the models or with the temperature data)of course is model v temperature comparisons - which are on pages 12 and 13 of that Summary:

"Figure 3: Comparison of observed and model-simulated global-average temperature trends (left-hand panels) and trend differences (right-hand panels) over January 1979 through December 1999,
"

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

That was not my contention. I stated that the relevant data in the Summary to which you linked ended in 1999. The relevant data (for the purpose of the still avoided question about whether you have issues with the models or with the temperature data)of course is model v temperature comparisons - which are on pages 12 and 13 of that Summary:

"Figure 3: Comparison of observed and model-simulated global-average temperature trends (left-hand panels) and trend differences (right-hand panels) over January 1979 through December 1999,
"

Figure 2 goes to 2004.

Figure 2: Total global-average temperature changes for the surface and different atmospheric layers, from different data sets and over two periods, 1958 to 2004 and 1979 to 2004.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by StuM

Where have you looked? On SkepticalScience?

It's basic "Climate Science 101".
Anyone who has studied the subject should be aware of the logarithmic effect of CO2 absorption.

You might try reading this post with an open mind:
The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide | Watts Up With That?

Well, I would think it obvious from the question that I had looked.

"Can you explain what you mean by 'Co2 has almost reached its thermal absorption maximum anyway.' I can find no reference to this anywhere."

"I can find no reference anywhere" should infer to a sharp reader that I had looked. Or were you just being facetious?

Of course, it was a mostly rhetorical question, though I did hope 33 would explain what he meant by thermal absorption maximum.

It's actually basic 'denier science 101', and has been around in varying forms since the early 20th century. Usually it's called 'CO2 saturation', and its' root is usually in not understanding the system completely or misapplication of data (or just an agenda, either open or hidden). In one word about saturation (which leaves out all the complexities of gas formulas) there is always this 'Venus'.


Just to be sure, I read (and reread) the article you suggested at the wanna be MSM site WUWT, where I found reverse-alarmist statements like this:

"Plant growth shuts down at 150 ppm, so the Earth was within 30 ppm of disaster. Terrestrial life came close to being wiped out by a lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. If plants were doing climate science instead of us humans, they would have a different opinion about what is a dangerous carbon dioxide level."

Now contrast that with this statement about the same thing:

"Studies addressing the effects of low [CO2] on plants are also fundamental for understanding plant evolution in response to changes in resource availability through time – primarily since changing [CO2] has been shown to have major implications for plant fitness (Ward et al., 2000). Modern plants grown at low [CO2] (150–200 ppm) exhibit highly compromised survival (Ward & Kelly, 2004) and reproduction (Dippery et al., 1995) at conditions that occurred only 18 000–20 000 yr ago. Such findings beg the question of how glacial plants survived during low-[CO2] periods, especially considering the lack of evidence for plant extinctions during these times. Furthermore, past work has demonstrated that low [CO2] has the potential to act as a strong selective agent on plants, and therefore evolutionary responses may have ameliorated some of the negative effects of low [CO2] in the past (Ward et al., 2000). However, the full suite of mechanisms accounting for these adaptive responses is currently unknown, as well as how adaptive processes may have been influenced by other interactions with climate change (for a discussion of possibilities see Sage, 1994; Sage & Cowling, 1999; Ward et al., 2000; Beerling, 2005). Furthermore, it is also important to consider that any genetic changes that occurred in the recent geologic past as a result of low [CO2] may continue to affect the responses of plants to rising [CO2] throughout the next century (Strain, 1991; Sage & Cowling, 1999)."

There were also the usual manipulated, uninforming and/or unreferenced graphs. I can entirely understand how someone who thought the 'information' here was accurate or factual would deny the work of thousands of scientists and hundreds of years experimentation. What's harder to understand is how anyone would think it is accurate and informative.

One can find virtually the same article on another wanna be MSM sight:

4. Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can « JoNova


For a more in depth, but still a layman's explanation one could read this:

A Saturated Gassy Argument « RealClimate

Open minds are optional for reading this, verifiable measurements tend to be more reliable.

And finally, I just like this shredding of the 'Saturation Myth' better.

How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation? Fourier tried to explain his insight by comparing the Earth with its covering of air to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape.(10) This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (As Fourier knew, the main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away. The glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping, but that's less important.) Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect."(11*)

Joseph Fourier
CLICK FOR FULL IMAGE

=>Other gases
Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works. A rough explanation goes like this. Visible sunlight penetrates easily through the air and warms the Earth’s surface. When the surface emits invisible infrared heat radiation, this radiation too easily penetrates the main gases of the air. But as Tyndall found, even a trace of CO2 or water vapor, no more than it took to fill a bottle in his laboratory, is almost opaque to heat radiation. Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by these gases in the middle levels of the atmosphere. Its energy transfers into the air itself rather than escaping directly into space. Not only is the air thus warmed, but also some of the energy trapped there is radiated back to the surface, warming it further.


=>CO2 greenhouse


=> Radiation math
That’s a shorthand way of explaining the greenhouse effect — seeing it from below, from "inside" the atmosphere. Unfortunately, shorthand arguments can be misleading if you push them too far. Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century used this approach, looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. So they tended to think of the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the "greenhouse" analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works, if you look at the process in detail. What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space. What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in. While that may sound fairly simple once it is explained, the process is not obvious if you have started by thinking of the atmosphere from below as a single slab. The correct way of thinking eluded neary all scientists for more than a century after Fourier. Physicists learned only gradually how to describe the greenhouse effect. To do so, they had to make detailed calculations of a variety of processes in each layer of the atmosphere. (For more on absorption of infrared by gas molecules, see this discussion in the essay on Basic Radiation Calculations.)


<= Radiation math
Despite Fourier's exceptional prowess in mathematics and physics, he lacked the knowledge to make even the simplest numerical calculation of how radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere.(12*) A few other 19th-century scientists attempted crude calculations and confirmed that at the Earth’s distance from the Sun, our planet would be frozen and lifeless without its blanket of air .(13) Tyndall followed with rich Victorian prose, arguing that water vapor "is a blanket more necessary to the vegetable life of England than clothing is to man. Remove for a single summer-night the aqueous vapour from the air... and the sun would rise upon an island held fast in the iron grip of frost."(14) Tyndall needed no equations, but only simple logic, to see what many since him overlooked: it is at night that the gases are most important in blocking heat radiation from escape, so it is night-time temperatures that the greenhouse effect raises the most.


=>Radiation math

You can read the whole story here:

https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#M_7_

(And yes there is information on the subject at SkepticalScience, though it too is under 'saturation' not 'thermal absorption maximum'.)

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Figure 2 goes to 2004.

No mention of models there!

And the question remains: is it the models or the data that you have issues with?