from dot earth
October 5, 2009, 2:41 pm Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science
By Andrew C. Revkin
Bloggers skeptical of global warming’s causes* and commentators fighting restrictions on greenhouse gases have made much in recent days of a string of posts on Climateaudit.org, one of the most popular Web sites aiming to challenge the deep consensus among climatologists that humans are setting the stage for generations of disrupted climate and rising seas. In the posts, Stephen McIntyre, questions sets of tree-ring data used in, or excluded from, prominent studies concluding that recent warming is unusual even when compared with past warm periods in the last several millenniums (including the recent Kaufman et al. paper discussed here).
Mr. McIntyre has gained fame or notoriety, depending on whom you consult, for seeking weaknesses in NASA temperature data and efforts to assemble a climate record from indirect evidence like variations in tree rings. Last week the scientists who run Realclimate.org, several of whom are authors of papers dissected by Mr. McIntyre, fired back. The Capital Weather Gang blog has just posted its analysis of the fight. One author of an underlying analysis of tree rings Keith Briffa, responded on his Web site and at on Climateaudit.org.
What is novel about all of this is how the blog discussions have sidestepped the traditional process of peer review and publication, then review and publication of critiques, and counter-critiques, by which science normally does that herky-jerky thing called knowledge building. The result is quick fodder for those using the Instanet to reinforce intellectual silos of one kind or another.
I explored this shift in the discourse in some e-mail exchanges with Mr. McIntyre and some of his critics, including Thomas Crowley, a University of Edinburgh specialist in unraveling past climate patterns. Dr. Crowley and Mr. McIntyre went toe to toe from 2003 through 2005 over data and interpretations. I then forwarded to Mr. McIntyre what amounted to a challenge from Dr. Crowley:
Thomas Crowley (now in Edinburgh) has sent me a note essentially challenging you to develop your own time series [of past climate patterns] (kind of a “put up or shut up” challenge). Why not do some climate science and get it published in the literature rather than poking at studies online, having the blogosphere amplify or distort your findings in a kind of short circuit that may not help push forward understanding?
As [Dr. Crowley] puts it: “McIntyre is really tiresome - notice he never publishes an alternate reconstruction that he thinks is better, oh no, because that involves taking a risk of him being criticized. He just nitpicks others. I don’t know of anyone else in science who actually does such things but fails to do something constructive himself.”
Here’s Mr. McIntyre’s reply (to follow references to publications you’ll need to refer to the linked papers). In essence, he says he sees no use in trying his own temperature reconstruction given the questions about the various data sets one would need to utilize:
The idea that I’m afraid of “taking a risk” or “taking a risk of being criticized” is a very strange characterization of what I do. Merely venturing into this field by confronting the most prominent authors at my age and stage of life was a far riskier enterprise than Crowley gives credit for. And as for “taking a risk of being criticized”? Can you honestly think of anyone in this field who is subjected to more criticism than I am? Or someone who has more eyes on their work looking for some fatal error?
The underlying problem with trying to make reconstructions with finite confidence intervals from the present roster of proxies is the inconsistency of the “proxies,” a point noted in McIntyre and McKitrick (PNAS 2009) in connection with Mann et al 2008 (but applies to other studies as well) as follows:
Paleoclimate reconstructions are an application of multivariate calibration, which provides a theoretical basis for confidence interval calculation (e.g., refs. 2 and 3). Inconsistency among proxies sharply inflates confidence intervals (3). Applying the inconsistency test of ref. 3 to Mann et al. A.D. 1000 proxy data shows that finite confidence intervals cannot be defined before ~1800.
Until this problem is resolved, I don’t see what purpose is served by proposing another reconstruction.
Crowley interprets the inconsistency as evidence of past “regional” climate, but offers no support for this interpretation other than the inconsistency itself –- which could equally be due to the “proxies” not being temperature proxies. There are fundamental inconsistencies at the regional level as well, including key locations of California (bristlecones) and Siberia (Yamal), where other evidence is contradictory t.o Mann-Briffa approachs (e.g. Millar et al 2006 re California; Naurzbaev et al 2004 and Polar Urals re Siberia,) These were noted up in the N.A.S. panel report, but Briffa refused to include the references in I.P.C.C. AR4. Without such detailed regional reconciliations, it cannot be concluded that inconsistency is evidence of “regional” climate as opposed to inherent defects in the “proxies” themselves.
The fundamental requirement in this field is not the need for a fancier multivariate method to extract a “faint signal” from noise – such efforts are all too often plagued with unawareness of data mining and data snooping. These problems are all too common in this field (e.g. the repetitive use of the bristlecones and Yamal series). I think that I’ve made climate scientists far more aware of these and other statistical problems than previously, whether they are willing to acknowledge this in public or not, and that this is highly “constructive” for the field.
As I mentioned to you, at least some prominent scientists in the field accept (though not for public attribution) the validity of our criticisms of the Mann-Briffa style reconstruction and now view such efforts as a dead end until better quality data is developed. If this view is correct, and I believe it is, then criticizing oversold reconstructions is surely “constructive” as it forces people to face up to the need for such better data.
Estimates provided to me (again without the scientists being prepared to do so in public) were that the development of such data may take 10-20 years and may involve totally different proxies than the ones presently in use. If I were to speculate on what sort of proxies had a chance of succeeding, it would be ones that were based on isotope fractionation or other physical processes with a known monotonic relationship to temperature and away from things like tree ring widths and varve thicknesses. In “deep time,” ice core O18 and foraminifera Mg/Ca in ocean sediments are examples of proxies that provide consistent or at least relatively consistent information. The prominent oceanographer Lowell Stott asked to meet with me at AGU 2007 to discuss long tree ring chronologies for O18 sampling. I sent all the Almagre cores to Lowell Stott’s lab, where Max Berkelhammer is analyzing delO18 values.
Underlying my articles and commentary is the effort to frame reconstructions in a broader statistical framework (multivariate calibration) where there is available theory, a project that seems to be ignored both by applied statisticians and climate scientists. At a 2007 conference of the American Statistical Association to which Caspar Ammann (but not me) was invited, it was concluded:
While there is undoubtedly scope for statisticians to play a larger role in paleoclimate research, the large investment of time needed to become familiar with the scientific background is likely to deter most statisticians from entering this field. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2280
I’ve been working on this from time to time over the past few years and this too seems “highly constructive” to me and far more relevant to my interests and skills than adding to the population of poorly constrained “reconstructions,” as Crowley proposes.
In the meantime, studies using recycled proxies and problematic statistical methods continue to be widely publicized. Given my present familiarity with the methods and proxies used in the field, I believe that there is a useful role for timely analysis of the type that I do at Climate Audit. It would be even more constructive if the authors rose to the challenge of defending their studies.
Given the importance of climate change as an issue, it remains disappointing that prompt archiving of data remains an issue with many authors and that funding agencies and journals are not more effective in enforcing existing policies or establishing such policies if existing policies are insufficient. It would be desirable as well if journals publishing statistical paleoclimate articles followed econometric journal practices by requiring the archiving of working code as a condition of review. While progress has been slow, I think that my efforts on these fronts, both data and code, have been constructive. It is disappointing that Crowley likens the archiving of data to doing a tax return. It’s not that hard. Even in blog posts (e.g. the Briffa post in question), I frequently provide turnkey code enabling readers to download all relevant data from original sources and to see all statistical calculations and figures for themselves. This is the way that things are going to go – not Crowley’s way.
So should this all play out within the journals, or is there merit to arguments of those contending that the process of peer review is too often biased to favor the status quo and, when involving matters of statistics, sometimes not involving the right reviewers?
Another scientist at the heart of the temperature-reconstruction effort, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, said that if Mr. McIntyre wants to be taken seriously he has to move more from blogging to publishing in the refereed literature.
“Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science,” Dr. Mann said. “It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process.” He added: “Those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.”
2009/10/03
Grape harvest
Nothing seems to give a useful proxy to temperature. Some of the better ones are grape harvest and budbust dates. But these only go back to about 1300s.
Note that grape harvest has not been converted to temp. so high temp = early harvest!
Note that grape harvest has not been converted to temp. so high temp = early harvest!
Statisticians and the real world
What a strange world we live in.
We have McIntyre and acolytes saying in one breath -
1. It is not valid to sort samples before you analyse them. Briffa should have used all samples from the area, and then come to a conclusion.
2. Then they say The 10/12 Briffa trees should not have been included as we have these 34 schweingruber(?) trees, and look no 20thC warming.
3. Someone then says that the Briffa trees should have been included
4. McIntyre adds them and finds a smaller hockey stick.
5. McIntyre analyses the Briffa trees and find a golden hockey stick tree which provides most of the late 20thC warming.
6. McIntyre then says this result is 8 sigma outside the normal and should not be included.
How do you reconcile statement 1 with statement 6??????
In my view if you are not allowed to sort for correlation between ring width and temperature over the period where we have instrumental records. Then you are not allowed to sort at all.
Consider this scenario
At a junk sale you purchase a number of instruments various environmental parameters over time. None are very accurate, and you have no idea which parameter they are measuring. You want to record temperature, so you set them up in the same location. Some years later you can afford a calibrated temperature recorder which you also set up in the same location.
Some of these instruments will have recorded sunlight, precipitation, soil nutrient levels, fungal spore levels, ambient temperature, and temperature of the soil 1 metre down.
If you want to know what the temperature was when you set up the first instruments do you
a. normalise all readings of all instruments then average them.
b. average them all without normalising
c. compare the outputs from all instruments with the calibrated temperature recorder and throw out all that show no correlation. normalise the results remaining and then average them
d. as c. but additionally throw out units deviating by significant amounts from the average.
Which of a. b. c. is going to give you best historic temperatures?
Personally as an engineer not a statistician I would go with d. or if insufficient instruments to find the outliers c.
I realise that this is going to bias the results to giving the same result as the calibrated instrument, but may I suggest this is exactly what you want.
It seems a statistician would go for 1 as this would not bias the result to valid temperatures. I just cannot understand this.
We have McIntyre and acolytes saying in one breath -
1. It is not valid to sort samples before you analyse them. Briffa should have used all samples from the area, and then come to a conclusion.
2. Then they say The 10/12 Briffa trees should not have been included as we have these 34 schweingruber(?) trees, and look no 20thC warming.
3. Someone then says that the Briffa trees should have been included
4. McIntyre adds them and finds a smaller hockey stick.
5. McIntyre analyses the Briffa trees and find a golden hockey stick tree which provides most of the late 20thC warming.
6. McIntyre then says this result is 8 sigma outside the normal and should not be included.
How do you reconcile statement 1 with statement 6??????
In my view if you are not allowed to sort for correlation between ring width and temperature over the period where we have instrumental records. Then you are not allowed to sort at all.
Consider this scenario
At a junk sale you purchase a number of instruments various environmental parameters over time. None are very accurate, and you have no idea which parameter they are measuring. You want to record temperature, so you set them up in the same location. Some years later you can afford a calibrated temperature recorder which you also set up in the same location.
Some of these instruments will have recorded sunlight, precipitation, soil nutrient levels, fungal spore levels, ambient temperature, and temperature of the soil 1 metre down.
If you want to know what the temperature was when you set up the first instruments do you
a. normalise all readings of all instruments then average them.
b. average them all without normalising
c. compare the outputs from all instruments with the calibrated temperature recorder and throw out all that show no correlation. normalise the results remaining and then average them
d. as c. but additionally throw out units deviating by significant amounts from the average.
Which of a. b. c. is going to give you best historic temperatures?
Personally as an engineer not a statistician I would go with d. or if insufficient instruments to find the outliers c.
I realise that this is going to bias the results to giving the same result as the calibrated instrument, but may I suggest this is exactly what you want.
It seems a statistician would go for 1 as this would not bias the result to valid temperatures. I just cannot understand this.
2009/09/30
dendro matching
thefordprefect:
September 29th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Can I see if I have this correct?
1. We have a number of tree ring samples from different areas
2. Briffa has selected only rings that match valid local temperature records.
3. Briffa assumes that these trees stay in sync with temperature to an early time in their life.
4. Briffa matches older dead(?) trees to those that match local temperatures and says that these must therefore also be in sync with local temp.
5. repeat 4. and until tree rings are available at the required earliest age.
6. Statistics does not allow matching of tree ring temperature proxy to real temperature because this is cherry picking and will always produce a hockey stick
I agree that extending backwards from multiple overlapped records must produce greater deviations from reality.
I agree that a single tree ring record can deviate once away from the matched record.
However, thinking as an engineer trying to find an accurate reading of for example a time series of a voltage supply to a building monitored with inaccurate chart recorders over various lengths of cable (= added noise). if one recorder is known to have been calibrated (to national standards) over recent part of that record, then I would look at the other recorders over this calibrated period and throw out all the outlier readings (they are wrong now, and I do not know if they were ever correct so there is no reason to include them in my determination. Some of the more accurate recorders may have read high before the calibrated range and some may have read low. Some will be recording significant noise compared to the majority and so these could be ignored if sufficient others remain to determine this fact. I would then average the remainder and suggest that this average record is the most likely record of voltage.
As a statistician are you suggesting that all recorder outputs should be averaged including those reading zero and those reading full scale and those whose readings deviate grossly from the mean.
This seems wrong and certainly will give a invalid result. Am I wrong?
But then we need to look at the tree sampling.
Were the trees sampled totally at random - trees in water, trees in bogs, trees scraping by on a solid rock, trees near to death, young trees etc?
Were they at the tree line or sea level?
Were they all the same "make"?
Etc.
I would suggest that the actual sampling was not random. Altitude, health, species, etc. are all non randomly chosen (cherry picked)
If this is the case what is the point suggesting that they should not be further chosen to best represent temperature? what would be the point for example choosing a tree that fell over during its life but continued to grow with diminished root function? What would be the point in chosing a tree with growth limited by water/nutrients. What would be the point in including a tree 100skm further north than the rest? Would your statistical methods require that these be included in the sequence?
Steve McIntyre:
September 29th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Re: thefordprefect (#244),
Some of your premises are not yet demonstrated. There are a couple of different levels of consolidation: at a "site", multiple cores are taken, usually within fairly close proximity to one another. These are composited into a "site chronology". Briffa unusually composites samples from areas not at all close to one another in Avam-Taimyr and Tornetrask-Finland. At Yamal, for some reason, he has not composited samples from Polar Urals, which is closer to Yamal than Avam is to Taimyr.
2. Briffa has selected only rings that match valid local temperature records.
[There are two issues: selection of trees at a site e.g. Yamal and selection of sites, e.g. Avam and a nearby Schweingruber site into Taimyr. The procedures are not described. It is not known how Yamal core selection decisions were made and which were made before CRU and which at CRU].
3. Briffa assumes that these trees stay in sync with temperature to an early time in their life.
[Not necessarily. WE don't know what was done. It is possible that trees with elevated growth rates were preferentially selected, but we don't know that for sure.]
4. Briffa matches older dead(?) trees to those that match local temperatures and says that these must therefore also be in sync with local temp.
[ no. crossdating is done by pattern matching.]
5. repeat 4. and until tree rings are available at the required earliest age.
6. Statistics does not allow matching of tree ring temperature proxy to real temperature because this is cherry picking and will always produce a hockey stick.
[this is a different issue.]
FP, I don't have time to provide personal education to everyone trying to get up to speed. I've asked people who don't have specialist viewpoints to comment on Unthreaded.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Can I see if I have this correct?
1. We have a number of tree ring samples from different areas
2. Briffa has selected only rings that match valid local temperature records.
3. Briffa assumes that these trees stay in sync with temperature to an early time in their life.
4. Briffa matches older dead(?) trees to those that match local temperatures and says that these must therefore also be in sync with local temp.
5. repeat 4. and until tree rings are available at the required earliest age.
6. Statistics does not allow matching of tree ring temperature proxy to real temperature because this is cherry picking and will always produce a hockey stick
I agree that extending backwards from multiple overlapped records must produce greater deviations from reality.
I agree that a single tree ring record can deviate once away from the matched record.
However, thinking as an engineer trying to find an accurate reading of for example a time series of a voltage supply to a building monitored with inaccurate chart recorders over various lengths of cable (= added noise). if one recorder is known to have been calibrated (to national standards) over recent part of that record, then I would look at the other recorders over this calibrated period and throw out all the outlier readings (they are wrong now, and I do not know if they were ever correct so there is no reason to include them in my determination. Some of the more accurate recorders may have read high before the calibrated range and some may have read low. Some will be recording significant noise compared to the majority and so these could be ignored if sufficient others remain to determine this fact. I would then average the remainder and suggest that this average record is the most likely record of voltage.
As a statistician are you suggesting that all recorder outputs should be averaged including those reading zero and those reading full scale and those whose readings deviate grossly from the mean.
This seems wrong and certainly will give a invalid result. Am I wrong?
But then we need to look at the tree sampling.
Were the trees sampled totally at random - trees in water, trees in bogs, trees scraping by on a solid rock, trees near to death, young trees etc?
Were they at the tree line or sea level?
Were they all the same "make"?
Etc.
I would suggest that the actual sampling was not random. Altitude, health, species, etc. are all non randomly chosen (cherry picked)
If this is the case what is the point suggesting that they should not be further chosen to best represent temperature? what would be the point for example choosing a tree that fell over during its life but continued to grow with diminished root function? What would be the point in chosing a tree with growth limited by water/nutrients. What would be the point in including a tree 100skm further north than the rest? Would your statistical methods require that these be included in the sequence?
Steve McIntyre:
September 29th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Re: thefordprefect (#244),
Some of your premises are not yet demonstrated. There are a couple of different levels of consolidation: at a "site", multiple cores are taken, usually within fairly close proximity to one another. These are composited into a "site chronology". Briffa unusually composites samples from areas not at all close to one another in Avam-Taimyr and Tornetrask-Finland. At Yamal, for some reason, he has not composited samples from Polar Urals, which is closer to Yamal than Avam is to Taimyr.
2. Briffa has selected only rings that match valid local temperature records.
[There are two issues: selection of trees at a site e.g. Yamal and selection of sites, e.g. Avam and a nearby Schweingruber site into Taimyr. The procedures are not described. It is not known how Yamal core selection decisions were made and which were made before CRU and which at CRU].
3. Briffa assumes that these trees stay in sync with temperature to an early time in their life.
[Not necessarily. WE don't know what was done. It is possible that trees with elevated growth rates were preferentially selected, but we don't know that for sure.]
4. Briffa matches older dead(?) trees to those that match local temperatures and says that these must therefore also be in sync with local temp.
[ no. crossdating is done by pattern matching.]
5. repeat 4. and until tree rings are available at the required earliest age.
6. Statistics does not allow matching of tree ring temperature proxy to real temperature because this is cherry picking and will always produce a hockey stick.
[this is a different issue.]
FP, I don't have time to provide personal education to everyone trying to get up to speed. I've asked people who don't have specialist viewpoints to comment on Unthreaded.
2009/09/29
Climate primer refs
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/1110/Unit1_1110.pdf
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/1110/Unit2_1110.pdf
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/1110/Unit3_1110.pdf
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/1110/Unit4_1110.pdf
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/1110/Unit2_1110.pdf
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/1110/Unit3_1110.pdf
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/1110/Unit4_1110.pdf
interesting links
effect of snow and grass on cooling
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/17/11/pdf/i1520-0450-17-11-1643.pdf
effect of cloud and wind on cooling
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/kidder/Oskar.pdf
tree rings briffa
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2269.full.pdf
tree rinkg yamal
Here’s another interesting dissertation with descriptions of the Yamal trees and environment:
http://vak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog/2009/13-07/KHantemirovRM.pdf
Good descriptions of the environment and the trees sampled.
Unfortunately (???) he ends up with yet another hockey stick:
See figure 18
Figure 18- of change in the mean temperature of summer (deviations from the average), smoothed by 50-year filter, and the dynamics of polar timber line
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/17/11/pdf/i1520-0450-17-11-1643.pdf
effect of cloud and wind on cooling
http://amsu.cira.colostate.edu/kidder/Oskar.pdf
tree rings briffa
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2269.full.pdf
tree rinkg yamal
Here’s another interesting dissertation with descriptions of the Yamal trees and environment:
http://vak.ed.gov.ru/common/img/uploaded/files/vak/announcements/biolog/2009/13-07/KHantemirovRM.pdf
Good descriptions of the environment and the trees sampled.
Unfortunately (???) he ends up with yet another hockey stick:
See figure 18
Figure 18- of change in the mean temperature of summer (deviations from the average), smoothed by 50-year filter, and the dynamics of polar timber line
2009/09/25
How HADCRUT temp adjustments are made
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
water vapour and GHGs
anna v (20:43:39) :
CO2 is a trace greenhouse element . period. the tail does not wag the dog.
BUT consider ozone. Even less than a trace gas. But if it were reduced by a few percent globally UVb would be playing hell with our genes, plant growth, plankton survivability. 1% change in O3==2% increase in UV.
From Wiki O3 gives 3-7% of the GHG effect from only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere (0.6ppm)
Is this not a case of the hair on the flea in the tail wagging the dog? CO2 could be similar?
Stephen Wilde (23:50:41) :
The composition of the air is merely an enabler. Once it has served it’s function in permitting the creation of liquid oceans and a hydrological cycle it’s significance becomes marginal.
You are making some really wild leaps here.
As you said energy balance is everything. The earth is a "grey" body radiator and if the atmosphere were suddenly lost radiation away would be determined by the various emissivities of the different terrain. And temperature will stabilise when grey body radiation out = radiation in. This would bottom out at about -18C.
Adding atmosphere makes it more complex so lets assume all GHGs are removed but the same atmospheric pressure were present (O2, N2, H2 are non GHGs). Without GHGs thermal radiation from the grey body will not be absorbed so only conduction and thence convection will heat the air. With no absorption by GHGs the grey body + atmosphere will still loose the same amount of radiation as if the atmosphere were not present (possibly more as the conducted heat to air will also radiate from the air).
So without any GHGs but with an amosphere the earth will radiate as before - as a grey body.
Major GHG effect (wiki)
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%
Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.[8] ...
The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms.
If we now add only normal concentration of water vapour to an earth without other GHGs assuming it starts at the average of 13-15degC However this is with a full compliment of GHGs. Water vapour only provides 72-85% of the GHG effect so the temperature will fall. Falling temperature will reduce the water vapour content of air which will lower the GHG effect and the temperature will fall. Falling temperature will reduce the water vapour content of air which will lower the GHG effect an the temperature will fall etc. - a positive feedback that will eventually lead to very low levels of water vapour and hence we will be back at near grey body temperature.
If we now add the other GHGs into the atmosphere then the grey body radiation is reduced and temperature rises. Rising temperature leads to more water vapour which leads to higher temperature etc. We then end up with a warming grey body. At some point the grey body radiation out will equal the incoming radiation and we have temperature "stasis".
water in the atmosphere
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/1110/Unit2_1110.pdf
CO2 is a trace greenhouse element . period. the tail does not wag the dog.
BUT consider ozone. Even less than a trace gas. But if it were reduced by a few percent globally UVb would be playing hell with our genes, plant growth, plankton survivability. 1% change in O3==2% increase in UV.
From Wiki O3 gives 3-7% of the GHG effect from only 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere (0.6ppm)
Is this not a case of the hair on the flea in the tail wagging the dog? CO2 could be similar?
Stephen Wilde (23:50:41) :
The composition of the air is merely an enabler. Once it has served it’s function in permitting the creation of liquid oceans and a hydrological cycle it’s significance becomes marginal.
You are making some really wild leaps here.
As you said energy balance is everything. The earth is a "grey" body radiator and if the atmosphere were suddenly lost radiation away would be determined by the various emissivities of the different terrain. And temperature will stabilise when grey body radiation out = radiation in. This would bottom out at about -18C.
Adding atmosphere makes it more complex so lets assume all GHGs are removed but the same atmospheric pressure were present (O2, N2, H2 are non GHGs). Without GHGs thermal radiation from the grey body will not be absorbed so only conduction and thence convection will heat the air. With no absorption by GHGs the grey body + atmosphere will still loose the same amount of radiation as if the atmosphere were not present (possibly more as the conducted heat to air will also radiate from the air).
So without any GHGs but with an amosphere the earth will radiate as before - as a grey body.
Major GHG effect (wiki)
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%
Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.[8] ...
The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms.
If we now add only normal concentration of water vapour to an earth without other GHGs assuming it starts at the average of 13-15degC However this is with a full compliment of GHGs. Water vapour only provides 72-85% of the GHG effect so the temperature will fall. Falling temperature will reduce the water vapour content of air which will lower the GHG effect and the temperature will fall. Falling temperature will reduce the water vapour content of air which will lower the GHG effect an the temperature will fall etc. - a positive feedback that will eventually lead to very low levels of water vapour and hence we will be back at near grey body temperature.
If we now add the other GHGs into the atmosphere then the grey body radiation is reduced and temperature rises. Rising temperature leads to more water vapour which leads to higher temperature etc. We then end up with a warming grey body. At some point the grey body radiation out will equal the incoming radiation and we have temperature "stasis".
water in the atmosphere
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/1110/Unit2_1110.pdf
2009/09/23
Ozone Hole
Reference stuff
http://wapedia.mobi/en/File:Sources_of_stratospheric_chlorine.png
http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/ozone/nasarelease.html
http://www.ozonedepletion.info/education/part3/ozonesources.html
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/volcanic_chlorine.html
http://info-pollution.com/omitted.htm
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Ozone_depletion?t=3.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/ser1997/html/chapter5.8.html#figure5.18
After the Antarctic Ozone Hole was discovered, some scientists took the view that it might be a natural event caused by volcanic chlorine emissions from Mount Erebus rather than manufactured chlorinated chemicals. Eventually, however, Mount Erebus was exonerated (Zredna-Gostynska et al., 1993). Most of the chlorine Mount Erebus throws up takes the form of hydrogen chloride (HCl), which (like other chlorine from natural sources) readily dissolves in the water vapour of the lower atmosphere well before it can reach the stratosphere.
For Mount Erebus to affect the ozone layer, the volcano would have to inject a large proportion of its hydrogen chloride directly into the stratosphere, above a height of about 10 km. Mount Erebus has been active since it was first observed by James Ross in 1840, but appears never to have erupted with the force necessary to send chlorine directly into the stratosphere. The mountain itself is almost 4,000 m high (3,794 m), but the volcanic plume seldom rises above 5,000 m. The amount of gas Mount Erebus emits also bears no relation to the size of the ozone hole. In the summer of 1983, chlorine emissions from Mount Erebus were about 170 tonnes a day. In the following seven summers, when ozone depletion was even more severe, the chlorine emissions ranged from one-tenth to one-quarter of the 1983 figure (Zreda-Gostynska et al., 1993).
http://wapedia.mobi/en/File:Sources_of_stratospheric_chlorine.png
http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/ozone/nasarelease.html
http://www.ozonedepletion.info/education/part3/ozonesources.html
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/volcanic_chlorine.html
http://info-pollution.com/omitted.htm
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Ozone_depletion?t=3.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/ser1997/html/chapter5.8.html#figure5.18
After the Antarctic Ozone Hole was discovered, some scientists took the view that it might be a natural event caused by volcanic chlorine emissions from Mount Erebus rather than manufactured chlorinated chemicals. Eventually, however, Mount Erebus was exonerated (Zredna-Gostynska et al., 1993). Most of the chlorine Mount Erebus throws up takes the form of hydrogen chloride (HCl), which (like other chlorine from natural sources) readily dissolves in the water vapour of the lower atmosphere well before it can reach the stratosphere.
For Mount Erebus to affect the ozone layer, the volcano would have to inject a large proportion of its hydrogen chloride directly into the stratosphere, above a height of about 10 km. Mount Erebus has been active since it was first observed by James Ross in 1840, but appears never to have erupted with the force necessary to send chlorine directly into the stratosphere. The mountain itself is almost 4,000 m high (3,794 m), but the volcanic plume seldom rises above 5,000 m. The amount of gas Mount Erebus emits also bears no relation to the size of the ozone hole. In the summer of 1983, chlorine emissions from Mount Erebus were about 170 tonnes a day. In the following seven summers, when ozone depletion was even more severe, the chlorine emissions ranged from one-tenth to one-quarter of the 1983 figure (Zreda-Gostynska et al., 1993).
2009/09/17
Greenland and North Atlantic climatic conditions
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/research/phd_theses/phd_theses_2006/2006/bo_mllese_vinther.pdf/
Jørgen Peder Steffensen stuff
Of interest:
http://www.ku.dk/english/news/?content=http://www.ku.dk/english/news/fossil_dna.htm
Some interestinfg stuff from Jørgen Peder Steffensen
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/golden_spike_in_ice_core/
and links on left
2009-09-03
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/climate_change_is_man-made/
Climate change is man-made shows arctic research
New research shows that the temperature of the arctic region fell steadily from over 2000 years ago all the way up to a 100 years ago. The cooling was caused by less solar radiation during the summer and the cold temperatures would have continued undisturbed. But around the year 1900 there occured a dramatic increase in temperature and the new research results therefore provide further evidence of man’s influence on the climate. The results are published in the scientific journal, Science.
http://www.ku.dk/english/news/?content=http://www.ku.dk/english/news/fossil_dna.htm
Some interestinfg stuff from Jørgen Peder Steffensen
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/golden_spike_in_ice_core/
and links on left
2009-09-03
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/climate_change_is_man-made/
Climate change is man-made shows arctic research
New research shows that the temperature of the arctic region fell steadily from over 2000 years ago all the way up to a 100 years ago. The cooling was caused by less solar radiation during the summer and the cold temperatures would have continued undisturbed. But around the year 1900 there occured a dramatic increase in temperature and the new research results therefore provide further evidence of man’s influence on the climate. The results are published in the scientific journal, Science.
NPI stuff
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/the_least_sea_ice/
Unprecedented low twentieth century winter sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas since A.D. 1200
Abstract We reconstructed decadal to centennial variability of maximum sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas for A.D. 1200–1997 using a combination of a regional tree-ring chronology from the timberline area in Fennoscandia and δ18O from the Lomonosovfonna ice core in Svalbard. The reconstruction successfully explained 59% of the variance in sea ice extent based on the calibration period 1864–1997. The significance of the reconstruction statistics (reduction of error, coefficient of efficiency) is computed for the first time against a realistic noise background. The twentieth century sustained the lowest sea ice extent values since A.D. 1200: low sea ice extent also occurred before (mid-seventeenth and mid-eighteenth centuries, early fifteenth and late thirteenth centuries), but these periods were in no case as persistent as in the twentieth century. Largest sea ice extent values occurred from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, during the Little Ice Age (LIA), with relatively smaller sea ice-covered area during the sixteenth century. Moderate sea ice extent occurred during thirteenth–fifteenth centuries. Reconstructed sea ice extent variability is dominated by decadal oscillations, frequently associated with decadal components of the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO), and multi-decadal lower frequency oscillations operating at ~50–120 year. Sea ice extent and NAO showed a non-stationary relationship during the observational period. The present low sea ice extent is unique over the last 800 years, and results from a decline started in late-nineteenth century after the LIA.
Unprecedented low twentieth century winter sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas since A.D. 1200
Abstract We reconstructed decadal to centennial variability of maximum sea ice extent in the Western Nordic Seas for A.D. 1200–1997 using a combination of a regional tree-ring chronology from the timberline area in Fennoscandia and δ18O from the Lomonosovfonna ice core in Svalbard. The reconstruction successfully explained 59% of the variance in sea ice extent based on the calibration period 1864–1997. The significance of the reconstruction statistics (reduction of error, coefficient of efficiency) is computed for the first time against a realistic noise background. The twentieth century sustained the lowest sea ice extent values since A.D. 1200: low sea ice extent also occurred before (mid-seventeenth and mid-eighteenth centuries, early fifteenth and late thirteenth centuries), but these periods were in no case as persistent as in the twentieth century. Largest sea ice extent values occurred from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, during the Little Ice Age (LIA), with relatively smaller sea ice-covered area during the sixteenth century. Moderate sea ice extent occurred during thirteenth–fifteenth centuries. Reconstructed sea ice extent variability is dominated by decadal oscillations, frequently associated with decadal components of the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation (NAO/AO), and multi-decadal lower frequency oscillations operating at ~50–120 year. Sea ice extent and NAO showed a non-stationary relationship during the observational period. The present low sea ice extent is unique over the last 800 years, and results from a decline started in late-nineteenth century after the LIA.
2009/09/16
Short vs long term temperature events
from WUWT
anna v (00:36:51) :
Proof is in the pudding: the existing CO2 ,though growing ,has not managed to stop a cooling PDO and it will stop the ice age
IFF radiation input/output to the earth is BALANCED (in=out) global warming/cooling will not happen. There will be weather, seasons, PDOs etc. but IFF in=out the averaged temperature over decades will be constant. Short term Temperatures will fluctuate!!!!!!!
If in is not equal to out then temperatures averaged over decades will show a rise/fall. If in-out difference is small then average temperature change will be small compared to weather, seasons, PDO etc. BUT there is still a trend up or down which will be obvious when temperatures are averaged over long enough periods. This is where we are. Weather, seasons, PDOs happen giving wandering temperature but do not negate small continuous changes to the in/out balance.
The flip from ice age to temperate will be caused by a long term in/out balance change not by weather, seasons, PDO or other transient events.
anna v (00:36:51) :
Proof is in the pudding: the existing CO2 ,though growing ,has not managed to stop a cooling PDO and it will stop the ice age
IFF radiation input/output to the earth is BALANCED (in=out) global warming/cooling will not happen. There will be weather, seasons, PDOs etc. but IFF in=out the averaged temperature over decades will be constant. Short term Temperatures will fluctuate!!!!!!!
If in is not equal to out then temperatures averaged over decades will show a rise/fall. If in-out difference is small then average temperature change will be small compared to weather, seasons, PDO etc. BUT there is still a trend up or down which will be obvious when temperatures are averaged over long enough periods. This is where we are. Weather, seasons, PDOs happen giving wandering temperature but do not negate small continuous changes to the in/out balance.
The flip from ice age to temperate will be caused by a long term in/out balance change not by weather, seasons, PDO or other transient events.
Sad reflection on a scientist (Plimmer)
From WUWT
masonmart (23:49:30) :
Monbiot refused to debate the issues with Plimer (as all AGW proponents refuse debate with knowledgeable skeptics) and I, who know nothing, would gladly debate Climate change with Monbiot.
Monbiot has stated that he will not debate unless written answers are provided to his questions. These answers have not been provided therefore no debate.
As you have read Plimers book from which all answers may be obtained (according to Plimer) Perhaps you could answer both Plimer and Monbiots questions here?
Q to Plimer
1. The first graph in your book (Figure 1, page 11). How do you explain the discrepancy between the HadCRUT3 figure and your claim?
2. Figure 3 (page 25) is a graph purporting to show that most of the warming in the 20th Century took place before 1945 closely resembles the global temperature graph in the first edition of Martin Durkin’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle - since retracted as false. What is the source for the graph you used?
3. You maintain that “the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly thirty years of temperature increase.” (page 25)
a. Please give the source for your claim.
b. How do you reconcile it with the published data?
In your discussion of global temperature trends, you maintain that “NASA now states that […] the warmest year was 1934.” (p99)
a. Are you aware that this applies only to the United States?
b. Was this a mistake or did you deliberately confuse these two datasets?
5. Discussing climate trends in the Arctic, you state that “the sea ice has expanded” (p198). Again, you give no reference.
a. Please give a source for this claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
6. You state that “If the current atmospheric CO2 content of 380 ppmv were doubled to 760 ppmv […] [a]n increase of 0.5C is likely” (p366). Again you give no source. Please provide a reference for this claim.
7. You claim that “About 98% of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due to water vapour.” (p370). Ian Enting says “In some cases the numbers given by Plimer are exaggerated to such an extent as to imply that without water vapour, Earth’s temperature would be below absolute zero - a physical impossibility.”
a. Please provide a reference for your claim about water vapour.
b. Please explain how your two statements (98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour and 18C can be attributed to CO2) can both be true
8. You cite a paper by Charles F Keller as the source of your claim that “satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming.” (p382)
a. How did you manage to reverse the findings of this paper?
b. Was it a mistake or was it deliberate misrepresentation?
9. You state “The Hadley Centre in the UK has shown that warming stopped in 1998″ (p391). Again you produce no reference.
a. Please give a reference for your claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between your account of what the Hadley Centre says and theirs?
10. You state that “Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world’s cars and industries combined.” (p413)
a. Please provide a reference for your claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?
11. You maintain that “termite methane emissions are 20 times potent than human CO2 emissions”. (p472) Please provide a source for this claim.
Plimer to Monbiot
1. From the distribution of the vines, olives, citrus and grain crops in Europe, UK and Greenland, calculate the temperature in the Roman and Medieval Warmings and the required atmospheric CO2 content at sea level to drive such warmings. What are the errors in your calculation? Reconcile your calculations with at least five atmospheric CO2 proxies. Show all calculations and justify all assumptions.
2. Tabulate the CO2 exhalation rates over the last 15,000 years from (i) terrestrial and submarine volcanism (including maars, gas vents, geysers and springs) and calc-silicate mineral formation, and (ii) CH4 oxidation to CO2 derived from CH4 exhalation by terrestrial and submarine volcanism, natural hydrocarbon leakage from sediments and sedimentary rocks, methane hydrates, soils, microbiological decay of plant material, arthropods, ruminants and terrestrial methanogenic bacteria to a depth of 4 km. From these data, what is the C12, C13 and C14 content of atmospheric CO2 each thousand years over the last 15,000 years and what are the resultant atmospheric CO2 residence times? All assumptions need to be documented and justified.
3. From first principles, calculate the effects on atmospheric temperature at sea level by changes in cloudiness of 0.5%, 1% and 2% at 0%, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% humidity. What changes in cloudiness would have been necessary to drive the Roman Warming, Dark Ages, Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age? Show all calculations and justify all assumptions.
4. Calculate the changes in atmospheric C12 and C13 content of CO2 and CH4 from crack-seal deformation. What is the influence of this source of gases on atmospheric CO2 residence time since 1850? Validate assumptions and show all calculations.
5. From CO2 proxies, carbonate rock and mineral volumes and stable isotopes, calculate the CO2 forcing of temperature in the Huronian, Neoproterozoic, Ordovician, Permo-Carboniferous and Jurassic ice ages. Why is the “faint Sun paradox” inapplicable to the Phanerozoic ice ages in the light of your calculations? All assumptions must be validated and calculations and sources of information must be shown.
6. From ocean current velocity, palaeotemperature and atmosphere measurements of ice cores and stable and radiogenic isotopes of seawater, atmospheric CO2 and fluid inclusions in ice and using atmospheric CO2 residence times of 4, 12, 50 and 400 years, numerically demonstrate that the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 could not derive from the Medieval Warming.
7. Calculate the changes in the atmospheric transmissivity of radiant energy over the last 2,000 years derived from a variable ingress of stellar, meteoritic and cometary dust, terrestrial dust, terrestrial volcanic aerosols and industrial aerosols. How can your calculations show whether atmospheric temperature changes are related to aerosols? All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown.
8. Calculate 10 Ma time flitches using W/R ratios of 10, 100 and 500 for the heat addition to the oceans, oceanic pH changes and CO2 additions to bottom waters by alteration of sea floor rocks to greenschist and amphibolite facies assemblages, the cooling of new submarine volcanic rocks (including MORBs) and the heat, CO2 and CH4 additions from springs and gas vents since the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. From your calculations, relate the heat balance to global climate over these 10 Ma flitches. What are the errors in your calculations? Show all calculations and discuss the validity of any assumptions made.
9. Calculate the rate of isostatic sinking of the Pacific Ocean floor resulting from post LGM loading by water, the rate of compensatory land level rise, the rate of gravitationally-induced sea level rise and sea level changes from morphological changes to the ocean floor. Numerically reconcile your answer with the post LGM sea level rise, oceanic thermal expansion and coral atoll drilling in the South Pacific Ocean. What are the relative proportions of sea level change derived from your calculations?
10. From atmospheric CO2 measurements, stable isotopes, radiogenic Kr and hemispheric transport of volcanic aerosols, calculate the rate of mixing of CO2 between the hemispheres of planet Earth and reconcile this mixing with CO2 solubility, CO2 chemical kinetic data, CO2 stable and cosmogenic isotopes, the natural sequestration rates of CO2 from the atmosphere into plankton, oceans, carbonate sediments and cements, hydrothermal alteration, soils, bacteria and plants for each continent and ocean. All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown. Calculations may need to be corrected for differences in 12CO2, 13CO2 and 14CO2 kinetic adsorption and/or molecular variations in oceanic dissolution rates.
11. Calculate from first principles the variability of climate, the warming and cooling rates and global sea level changes from the Bölling to the present and compare and contrast the variability, maximum warming and maximum sea level change rates over this time period to that from 1850 to the present. Using your calculations, how can natural and human-induced changes be differentiated? All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown.
12. Calculate the volume of particulate and sulphurous aerosols and CO2 and CH4 coeval with the last three major mass extinctions of life. Use the figures derived from these calculations to numerically demonstrate the effects of terrestrial, deep submarine, hot spot and mid ocean ridge volcanism on planktonic and terrestrial life on Earth. What are the errors in your calculations?
13. From the annual average burning of hydrocarbons, lignite, bituminous coal and natural and coal gas, smelting, production of cement, cropping, irrigation and deforestation, use the 25µm, 7µm and 2.5µm wavelengths to calculate the effect that gaseous, liquid and solid H2O have on atmospheric temperature at sea level and at 5 km altitude at latitudes of 20º, 40º, 60º and 80ºS. How does the effect of H2O compare with the effect of CO2 derived from the same sources? All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown.
Remember Plimer says his questions' answers can be found in his books.
So we have Monbiot mainly requesting sources of Plimer's eronious statements (surely a simple request to answer?) and Plimer requesting a journalist to provide original scientific research and to derive models from first principles. As Monbiot admits - he is not a research scientist so the questions are outside his knowledge.
Some of Monbiots questions (have now been answered on realclimate)
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/
Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!
Rabett Run
masonmart (23:49:30) :
Monbiot refused to debate the issues with Plimer (as all AGW proponents refuse debate with knowledgeable skeptics) and I, who know nothing, would gladly debate Climate change with Monbiot.
Monbiot has stated that he will not debate unless written answers are provided to his questions. These answers have not been provided therefore no debate.
As you have read Plimers book from which all answers may be obtained (according to Plimer) Perhaps you could answer both Plimer and Monbiots questions here?
Q to Plimer
1. The first graph in your book (Figure 1, page 11). How do you explain the discrepancy between the HadCRUT3 figure and your claim?
2. Figure 3 (page 25) is a graph purporting to show that most of the warming in the 20th Century took place before 1945 closely resembles the global temperature graph in the first edition of Martin Durkin’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle - since retracted as false. What is the source for the graph you used?
3. You maintain that “the last two years of global cooling have erased nearly thirty years of temperature increase.” (page 25)
a. Please give the source for your claim.
b. How do you reconcile it with the published data?
In your discussion of global temperature trends, you maintain that “NASA now states that […] the warmest year was 1934.” (p99)
a. Are you aware that this applies only to the United States?
b. Was this a mistake or did you deliberately confuse these two datasets?
5. Discussing climate trends in the Arctic, you state that “the sea ice has expanded” (p198). Again, you give no reference.
a. Please give a source for this claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
6. You state that “If the current atmospheric CO2 content of 380 ppmv were doubled to 760 ppmv […] [a]n increase of 0.5C is likely” (p366). Again you give no source. Please provide a reference for this claim.
7. You claim that “About 98% of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due to water vapour.” (p370). Ian Enting says “In some cases the numbers given by Plimer are exaggerated to such an extent as to imply that without water vapour, Earth’s temperature would be below absolute zero - a physical impossibility.”
a. Please provide a reference for your claim about water vapour.
b. Please explain how your two statements (98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour and 18C can be attributed to CO2) can both be true
8. You cite a paper by Charles F Keller as the source of your claim that “satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming.” (p382)
a. How did you manage to reverse the findings of this paper?
b. Was it a mistake or was it deliberate misrepresentation?
9. You state “The Hadley Centre in the UK has shown that warming stopped in 1998″ (p391). Again you produce no reference.
a. Please give a reference for your claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between your account of what the Hadley Centre says and theirs?
10. You state that “Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world’s cars and industries combined.” (p413)
a. Please provide a reference for your claim.
b. How do you explain the discrepancy between this claim and the published data?
11. You maintain that “termite methane emissions are 20 times potent than human CO2 emissions”. (p472) Please provide a source for this claim.
Plimer to Monbiot
1. From the distribution of the vines, olives, citrus and grain crops in Europe, UK and Greenland, calculate the temperature in the Roman and Medieval Warmings and the required atmospheric CO2 content at sea level to drive such warmings. What are the errors in your calculation? Reconcile your calculations with at least five atmospheric CO2 proxies. Show all calculations and justify all assumptions.
2. Tabulate the CO2 exhalation rates over the last 15,000 years from (i) terrestrial and submarine volcanism (including maars, gas vents, geysers and springs) and calc-silicate mineral formation, and (ii) CH4 oxidation to CO2 derived from CH4 exhalation by terrestrial and submarine volcanism, natural hydrocarbon leakage from sediments and sedimentary rocks, methane hydrates, soils, microbiological decay of plant material, arthropods, ruminants and terrestrial methanogenic bacteria to a depth of 4 km. From these data, what is the C12, C13 and C14 content of atmospheric CO2 each thousand years over the last 15,000 years and what are the resultant atmospheric CO2 residence times? All assumptions need to be documented and justified.
3. From first principles, calculate the effects on atmospheric temperature at sea level by changes in cloudiness of 0.5%, 1% and 2% at 0%, 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% humidity. What changes in cloudiness would have been necessary to drive the Roman Warming, Dark Ages, Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age? Show all calculations and justify all assumptions.
4. Calculate the changes in atmospheric C12 and C13 content of CO2 and CH4 from crack-seal deformation. What is the influence of this source of gases on atmospheric CO2 residence time since 1850? Validate assumptions and show all calculations.
5. From CO2 proxies, carbonate rock and mineral volumes and stable isotopes, calculate the CO2 forcing of temperature in the Huronian, Neoproterozoic, Ordovician, Permo-Carboniferous and Jurassic ice ages. Why is the “faint Sun paradox” inapplicable to the Phanerozoic ice ages in the light of your calculations? All assumptions must be validated and calculations and sources of information must be shown.
6. From ocean current velocity, palaeotemperature and atmosphere measurements of ice cores and stable and radiogenic isotopes of seawater, atmospheric CO2 and fluid inclusions in ice and using atmospheric CO2 residence times of 4, 12, 50 and 400 years, numerically demonstrate that the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 could not derive from the Medieval Warming.
7. Calculate the changes in the atmospheric transmissivity of radiant energy over the last 2,000 years derived from a variable ingress of stellar, meteoritic and cometary dust, terrestrial dust, terrestrial volcanic aerosols and industrial aerosols. How can your calculations show whether atmospheric temperature changes are related to aerosols? All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown.
8. Calculate 10 Ma time flitches using W/R ratios of 10, 100 and 500 for the heat addition to the oceans, oceanic pH changes and CO2 additions to bottom waters by alteration of sea floor rocks to greenschist and amphibolite facies assemblages, the cooling of new submarine volcanic rocks (including MORBs) and the heat, CO2 and CH4 additions from springs and gas vents since the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. From your calculations, relate the heat balance to global climate over these 10 Ma flitches. What are the errors in your calculations? Show all calculations and discuss the validity of any assumptions made.
9. Calculate the rate of isostatic sinking of the Pacific Ocean floor resulting from post LGM loading by water, the rate of compensatory land level rise, the rate of gravitationally-induced sea level rise and sea level changes from morphological changes to the ocean floor. Numerically reconcile your answer with the post LGM sea level rise, oceanic thermal expansion and coral atoll drilling in the South Pacific Ocean. What are the relative proportions of sea level change derived from your calculations?
10. From atmospheric CO2 measurements, stable isotopes, radiogenic Kr and hemispheric transport of volcanic aerosols, calculate the rate of mixing of CO2 between the hemispheres of planet Earth and reconcile this mixing with CO2 solubility, CO2 chemical kinetic data, CO2 stable and cosmogenic isotopes, the natural sequestration rates of CO2 from the atmosphere into plankton, oceans, carbonate sediments and cements, hydrothermal alteration, soils, bacteria and plants for each continent and ocean. All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown. Calculations may need to be corrected for differences in 12CO2, 13CO2 and 14CO2 kinetic adsorption and/or molecular variations in oceanic dissolution rates.
11. Calculate from first principles the variability of climate, the warming and cooling rates and global sea level changes from the Bölling to the present and compare and contrast the variability, maximum warming and maximum sea level change rates over this time period to that from 1850 to the present. Using your calculations, how can natural and human-induced changes be differentiated? All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown.
12. Calculate the volume of particulate and sulphurous aerosols and CO2 and CH4 coeval with the last three major mass extinctions of life. Use the figures derived from these calculations to numerically demonstrate the effects of terrestrial, deep submarine, hot spot and mid ocean ridge volcanism on planktonic and terrestrial life on Earth. What are the errors in your calculations?
13. From the annual average burning of hydrocarbons, lignite, bituminous coal and natural and coal gas, smelting, production of cement, cropping, irrigation and deforestation, use the 25µm, 7µm and 2.5µm wavelengths to calculate the effect that gaseous, liquid and solid H2O have on atmospheric temperature at sea level and at 5 km altitude at latitudes of 20º, 40º, 60º and 80ºS. How does the effect of H2O compare with the effect of CO2 derived from the same sources? All assumptions must be justified and calculations and sources of information must be shown.
Remember Plimer says his questions' answers can be found in his books.
So we have Monbiot mainly requesting sources of Plimer's eronious statements (surely a simple request to answer?) and Plimer requesting a journalist to provide original scientific research and to derive models from first principles. As Monbiot admits - he is not a research scientist so the questions are outside his knowledge.
Some of Monbiots questions (have now been answered on realclimate)
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/14/correspondence-with-ian-plimer/
Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!
Rabett Run
2009/09/11
Arctic Temps posting on WUWT
Arctic Temperatures – What Hockey Stick?
Circling the Arctic
What sudden recent warming? What Hockey Stick? I don’t see any.
By Lucy Skywalker Green World Trust
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic.htm
Hmmmm!
Not impressed with the title here.
I have now gone through the GISS data (homogenised) and differenced the monthly figures of each station then averaged over the locations in the above map. It may not be classical hockey stick but its very close:
Over 2 degC difference between 1882 and 2008
A steady rise from 1966 onwards rising to greater than 0.5C higer than 1936 temp
Circling the Arctic
What sudden recent warming? What Hockey Stick? I don’t see any.
By Lucy Skywalker Green World Trust
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic.htm
Hmmmm!
Not impressed with the title here.
I have now gone through the GISS data (homogenised) and differenced the monthly figures of each station then averaged over the locations in the above map. It may not be classical hockey stick but its very close:
Over 2 degC difference between 1882 and 2008
A steady rise from 1966 onwards rising to greater than 0.5C higer than 1936 temp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
