Big Global Warming Debate at The Villages (FL) Science Tech Club

The title of the debate was "Two Views on Human-Caused Global Warming". Fellow Villager Don Fogg took the AFFIRMATIVE and I (Ira Glickstein) took the NEGATIVE in a friendly but spirited debate with considerable participation by the overflow audience. Our mutual friend, Steve Hendrickson, was kind enough to video the entire event. The photos  in this Blog posting are frame grabs from his excellent video.

Our combined PowerPoint chart set is available from The Villages Science Technology Club at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YPiXPuaHLcXeP3p2D_d5AfNekEXMIwVg/view  

We agreed on five QUITE SPECIFIC debate ISSUES, as listed at the bottom of the following photo:

For the most part, this was a science-based debate because Don and I agree on most of the basic science. Our level of agreement was stated in the following stipulations:

Both parties agree, for purposes of this debate, that:

1.The Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect is true science. Atmospheric gases, mostly Water Vapor and CO2, are responsible for the Earth surface being about 33⁰C warmer due to this effect. All else being equal, a rise in CO2 will cause mean temperatures to rise. 

2.CO2 levels in the Atmosphere have been rising at an unprecedented rate over the past century, from less than 300ppmv to over 400ppmv. At least half of that rise is due to human activities, primarily burning of fossil fuels.

3.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued five “Assessment Reports” from 1990 to 2013, with projections for future warming based on over 100 Climate Models.

4.NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) is the main US-government funded Climate agency, tracking, reporting, and adjusting historical US and world-wide terrestrial thermometer data (1880-present), and contributing to the IPCC.

5.The US government also funds satellite systems that measure lower atmospheric temperatures, available since 1979. University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) are the major US-government funded groups for satellite-based world-wide temperature tracking.

IRA'S MAIN DEBATE POINTS

1) While the Earth Surface has definitely warmed since 1880, and some portion of  that warming is due to human activities (mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels and land use changes) the AMOUNT of warming has been inflated by around 0.5⁰C and the DEGREE of human-causation has been exaggerated.

2) The Official Climate Models, based on the IPCC and NASA-GISS Climate Theory, run HOT. They thus give an over-stated sense of danger and therefore urgency, which is not supported by the rather modest warming.

3) As Richard Feynman famously said
"It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong."

The Official Climate Theory is wrong in that Climate Models based on that Theory run HOT compared to the observational data. Thus, the climate "experiment" results do not agree with the  theory. The Official Climate Team should correct their theory. Instead, they  have inflated their observational data!

I believe the major problem with the Climate Models is how they treat CLOUDS. Daytime clouds have a net NEGATIVE impact on warming, while nighttime clouds have a POSITIVE impact. The Climate Models assume, incorrectly IMHO, that the overall net effect of increasing clouds (daytime and nighttime) is POSITIVE, while, based on actual data, it is NEGATIVE. In addition, the Climate Models do not properly account for thunderstorms, which remove heat from the surface and move it into the Atmosphere where it can more easily be radiated out to space.

There are over 100 Official IPCC Climate Models that date from the early 1990's. These Climate Models have been updated with each Assessment Report issued. Taking their 2007 report, called "AR4", the average of all their Climate Model PREDICTIONS (which they call "projections") have tended to be WARMER, by a factor of two or three than the best worldwide temperature measurements.

[Added 13 Feb 2018] For example, when the AR4 Predictions are aligned with the Berkeley Earth Surface Air Temperature (as in the photo below), the predictions for the years following 2007 go up sharply by about 0.2⁰C, but actual measurements show an increase of less than 0.1⁰C.

As Yogi Berra famously said: "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the FUTURE."

Climate Model predictions about the PAST are called "retro-dictions" and one would expect any good Climate Model would retro-dict the PAST quite well, because the scientists constructing the models have actual data from the PAST in hand. Never-the-less, as  the photo shows, the average retro-dictions run hot by about 0.2⁰C for the period 1880 through 1940. [End of added material]


ADJUSTMENTS TO US TEMPERATURE DATA

As the following slide indicates, US terrestrial temperature data, based on thousands of observations of surface-based thermometers by dedicated Americans since 1880, has been adjusted by American scientists at NASA-GISS at least seven times between 1999 and the present.

The slide focuses on two specific very warm years, 1998 and 1934. However, the adjustments affected virtually all temperature data from the 1920's through the 1990's. US Temperatures for the years prior to the 1970's were cooled, and for the years following the 1970's were warmed.

As NASA-GISS reported in 1999, the US, in 1934, was over half a degree C (0.541⁰C) WARMER than 1998. This was, shall we say "inconvenient" since their objective was to alert the American public to what they thought was a future of catastrophic human-caused warming.

The data points on the chart are based on a surprisingly candid 14 Aug 2007 email from NASA-GISS Research Scientist Makiko Sato, PhD, to her boss James Hansen, PhD. (The email was released in 2010 due to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action by Judicial Watch.) 

Sato's FOIA email details the results of seven adjustments (YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK :^(.

Sato started in 2000 and 2001, where by two mighty analysis efforts she got 1934 to COOL by about a quarter degree C, and 1998 to WARM by a similar amount. However, even after  this effort, 1934 was still a bit WARMER than 1998.

The data sat undisturbed in her desk for four years, until 2005, when a third analysis kept 1934 about as COOL as it had been according to her year 2001 effort. However (HORRORS!!!) 1998 COOLED back down about a quarter degree C, back to the original values reported in 1999. So according to her 2005 analysis, the US in 1934 had been about a quarter degree C WARMER than 1998.

Sato's boss, James Hansen, was a key technical advisor to Al Gore for his "Inconvenient Truth" lecture tour and movie, scheduled for release in 2007. So, if  the Earth was supposed to be in a HUMAN-CAUSED CATASTROPHIC WARMING trend, it was "inconvenient" for the warmest US year in the last half of the 20th century to be COOLER than the warmest year in the first half. 

So, Sato did three more analyses in January 2007 (the fourth since 1998), March (2007 the fifth since 1998), and August 2007 (the sixth since 1998). She got 1934 and 1998 very close to the same temperatures. Indeed, although the January and August analyses had 1998 a bit COOLER, the March analysis, after heroic effort by Sato, got 1998 a teeny-tiny bit WARMER than 1934.

However, despite this triple re-analysis attack Sato's FOIA email ends with 1934 still a bit WARMER than 1934, but only by a teeny-tiny 0.003⁰C.

Never-the-less, in the years following Sato's 2007 email, NASA-GISS continued to plough your taxpayer dollars into re-analysis of the 1934 and 1998 data. I looked up the latest US data on their website, and 1998 is finally over a tenth degree C (0.114⁰C) WARMER than poor old 1934.

ON THE NASA-GISS WEBSITE THEY ADMIT "These adjustments caused an increase of about 0.5⁰C in the US mean for the period 1900 to 1990." See:   https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q215
(NOTE: By my accounting, the actual increase is over 0.6⁰C, but "close enough for government work"!)

NASA-GISS also notes the adjusted data is only "1.6% of the Earth's surface". The implication being these adjustments have minimal impact on world-wide data.  See: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

HOWEVER, IF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS CANNOT ANALYZE AMERICAN DATA TO WITHIN HALF A DEGREE C, WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE WORLD-WIDE DATA (SOME OF IT FROM THIRD-WORLD COUNTRIES) AND ASSOCIATED ANALYSIS IS ANY BETTER?

I spot a definite WARMING TREND, do you? If we look at this data in future years, I fully expect 1998 to take its "rightful" place at least 0.5⁰C WARMER than bad old 1934. OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.

The Official rationale for the repeated adjustments (at least seven by my count) is that, over the many years since 1880, US thermometer readers tended to read their thermometers at different times of day.We all know that early morning and late evening tends to be cooler than midday (sometimes by 10⁰C !) Also, when the thermometer sites are relocated, say from the local newspaper office to a new airport, the new site may be a bit warmer or cooler. So, those changes, quite obviously, have to be taken into account to make sure errors are not introduced.

Are we to believe that James Hansen (head of NASA-GISS starting in 1981) and his respected research scientists did not know about these Time of Observation and Site Relocation effects until 2000? Hansen had worked on Climate Science for over 19 years before he and his staff realized adjustments were necessary?

Does anyone believe that, when they finally figured out they had to make these adjustments, it  took them seven analyses, over a decade or more, to get the "RIGHT" answer?

I tend to believe that many government-funded research projects are done less than competently. However, I simply do not believe Hansen and Sato were that incompetent.

No, I think they saw it as their "duty" to warn us about an impending climate catastrophe (and thus keep taxpayer money coming in), so they beat the old US data mercilessly, until they got the "RIGHT" results. (The 1934 data was old enough to qualify for Social Security :^).

If these were the inflation-adjusted profit reports of a corporation trying to spin a tale of continually-increasing profits, and the data published in 1999 showed 1998 was $ 0.5 Billion LESS profitable than 1934, and seven subsequent published reports showed variously changing reports ending with a virtual tie, would anyone believe it? Any competent observer would suspect "the books have been cooked!"

SUMMARY

TRUTH-IN-ADVERTISING: ALL GOVERNMENT-FUNDED RESEARCH WILL INEVITABLY YIELD RESULTS DESIGNED TO YIELD FURTHER FUNDING.

I'd love to see comments posted to this Topic (especially by Don). In accordance with my duties as Moderator of my Blog, I promise to approve any substantive response, positive or negative. Also, if Don or any of his allies wish to post an entire Topic commenting on or refuting my claims, I will happily grant them the status of Authorized Author on this Blog.

Ira Glickstein

How Climate Science Has Gone Astray

Here is a great August 2017 YouTube video interview of Judith Curry, PhD. She explains how Climate Science got mixed up with Politics and went astray - AND - how she was "thrown out of the tribe" for expressing her expert, but contrary, views. I generally agree with Curry.

For more information, see the World's Most Viewed Global Warming and Climate Website.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/dr-judith-curry-explains-the-reality-of-bad-climate-science-and-bad-politics/

I happen to be a Guest Contributor at that website: https://wattsupwiththat.com/author/iraglickstein/

Ira Glickstein

Watts Up With That? - Ten Years of the World's Most Viewed Climate Site

Congratulations to Anthony Watts for creating and running the World's Most Viewed Climate website! At this TEN YEAR point, WUWT has achieved over 291 Million page views, and nearly 2 Million comments.

I've been a Guest Contributor to WUWT for six years and my 36 postings have garnered over 360 Thousand page views, and over 8 Thousand comments. I'm very proud to be included in the following list of distinguished people Anthony has thanked personally:

You may view my WUWT postings here.

Please have a look at my VISUAL IRA Blog for "Visualizing Science and Technology with Ira" in the following areas:

• Climate Science
• Einstein's Relativity
• Aritificial Intelligence Advisors
• Hierarchy Theory (my PhD)

Ira Glickstein

A Global Warming Skeptic Guide for the Perplexed

How should responsible Global Warming Skeptics respond to opinions from intelligent members of the general public who have been perplexed by the Warmists and Alarmists?

NOTE: AN UPDATED VERSION OF THIS HAS BEEN PUBLISHED AT THE WORLD'S MOST POPULAR CLIMATE WEBSITE, SEE

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/10/a-guide-for-those-perplexed-about-global-warming/ 

PLEASE CLICK THE LINK TO SEE IT. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO JOIN THE CONVERSATION.

IN THE FIRST 12 HOURS, IT WAS VIEWED BY OVER 3,500 PEOPLE, 168 OF WHO TOOK THE TIME TO POST COMMENTS. AT 24 HOURS IT WAS UP TO OVER 10,000 PAGE VIEWS AND 237 COMMENTS. I EXPECT IT TO CONTINUE TO BE POPULAR, GAIN THOUSANDS MORE PAGE VIEWS AND BE RE-POSTED BY OTHERS. 

We should reply in a strictly fact-based way, using official sources, and being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter. Here is my shot at it.

At a recent meeting of a local discussion group a well-spoken retired teacher presented a list of important issues that, in his opinion, have received less coverage by the media than they deserve. "Climate Change" was on his list.

He said it was unfortunate that the main proponent of human-caused "Global Warning" was a prominent Democrat (former VP Al Gore), because that led to the issue becoming politicized, with his fellow Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other. He speculated that had a leading Republican promoted the same issue, the reaction would probably be the reverse.

He then raised several points, citing the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other expert sources. He said that Global Warming is really happening, with a rise of over 0.7⁰C, and we humans are the main cause due to our massive use of fossil fuels that generate atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas that warms the Earth.

During the discussion period I agreed that global warming is real, that atmospheric CO2 undoubtedly causes warming, and that some of the increased CO2 is certainly due to human actions. However, I pointed out that, although atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise, and at an accelerating rate, global temperatures have not statistically increased for at least 15 years. Therefore, while CO2 levels have definitely caused some of the warming, and rising CO2 is mostly caused by human activities, CO2 cannot be the main cause.

The presenter assured me that he respected my opinions, but, while he was not a scientist, he was relying on scientists and scientific organizations that had studied the issue. He then read a few quotes, including one that said human actions were likely to lead to a "tipping point" where the ice caps melt and there is runaway warming on a catastrophic scale.

I have prepared the following strictly fact-based response, using sources the presenter himself mentioned and being careful not to speculate or over-complicate the matter.

1- It is undoubtedly true that average surface temperatures have increased significantly since 1880. Human activities are responsible for some portion of that warming. [The image below is the latest GISS Global Temperature Index anomaly. The black squares indicate the mean temperature anomaly for each 12-month calendar year. The thick red line indicates the mean temperature anomaly smoothed over 60 months (five years). This graphic shows a net increase of about 0.8⁰C (about 1.5⁰F) since 1880. While I think "data adjustments" have increased the apparent warming by a few tenths of a degree, I accept that warming since 1880 is at least 0.5⁰C (about 1⁰F)]

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.pdf  - downloaded 6 Sep 2014

2- Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen steadily, and the rate of increase has doubled since reliable CO2 data from Mauna Loa became available around 1959. [The image below is the latest NOAA ESRL Atmospheric CO2 showing an increase of about 1 ppm/year in the 1960's and about 2 ppm/year in the 2000's. The current level is approaching 400 ppm. The pre-industrial level is estimated to have been about 280 ppm.]

Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ - Downloaded 6 Sep 2014. Annotations in purple by Ira.

3- When compared to actual polar satellite temperature observations, the IPCC climate models have predicted too much warming, particularly after 1998. [The image below is the latest RSS Global temperature anomaly since about 1979 when good global temperature data from polar orbiting satellites became available. Note how, from 1999 to the present, the actual observations of temperature (thick black line) consistently fall below the yellow band (IPCC climate model prediction range with supposed 95% probability).]

Source: http://www.remss.com/research/climate - Downloaded 6 Sep 2014. Annotations in purple by Ira.

[NOAA Caption "Fig. 1.  Global (80S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time.  The thick black line is the observed time series from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations.  The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Again, after 1998, the observations are likely to be below the simulated values, indicating that the simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming."] (my bold)

Please note that, according to the actual RSS polar satellite temperature observations (thick black line), there has been absolutely no net warming after 1998. Indeed, 2013 is about 0.6⁰C (more than 1⁰F) cooler than the middle of the predicted range, and even 0.3⁰C (more than 0.5⁰F) cooler than the lower edge of the predicted range. Also note that the thick black line falls well below the yellow band, which indicates that the statistical 95% confidence level claimed for the IPCC climate models is not valid. Over the most recent 15-year period, actual satellite temperature observations have consistently been cooler than the central prediction of the IPCC climate models, by from 0.2⁰C to 0.8⁰C (about 0.4⁰F to 1.5⁰F).   

4- According to the NASA GISS Global Temperature Index, when smoothed over a calendar year, there has been no net warming for 15 years. Even when smoothed over a longer period of five years, there has been no net warming for seven years. [The image below is a close-up of the upper right corner of the first image in this posting.]

Source: Close-up view of the upper right corner of the NASA GISS Global Temperature Index anomaly from the first graphic in this posting. Annotations in purple by Ira.

[The black squares represent the temperature anomaly for each given calendar year (12 month average). Note that 1998 is warmer than 2013, indicating no net warming for 15 years. The thick red line represents the 5-year running mean (smoothed over 5 years which is 60 months). Note that 2003 is at the same temperature as 2010, indicating no net warming for at least seven years.]

CONCLUSIONS

All of the above facts and data is directly from official, government-sponsored climate research organizations, and I have provide web links so anyone can check them his- or herself. If any reader thinks I have distorted or misrepresented any of the above material I will appreciate it if he or she posts a comment to this blog detailing any objections. (If you cannot figure out how to post a blog comment, please send your material to me in an email to ira@techie.com and I will be happy to post it for you.)

Unlike the above, the following conclusions involve some speculation on my part.

a- Politicization of the issue. I agree that "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" have been way over-politicized. Had the main proponent been a Republican, positions might have been reversed. However, I cannot imagine any Republican President or VP or other Republican office-older of similar national prominence falling for the idea that we humans are responsible for the majority of the warming we have experienced, or that the warming process is likely to lead to global catastrophe. And, even if he or she went along with the initial dire predictions, any reasonable and responsible politician (of either party) would understand that the absolute disconnect between actual temperature observations and predictions of IPCC climate models invalidates the idea of human-caused catastrophic climate change, and reverse their positions.

b- Activists in the catastrophic climate change industry purposely misrepresent the views of responsible Skeptics by making a number of false claims:

• FALSE CLAIM - Skeptics do not believe the basic science of the Atmospheric "greenhouse" effect. RESPONSE - We do accept that water vapor, CO2, and other 'greenhouse" gases are responsible for the Earth being around 33⁰C (60⁰F) warmer than it would be if there were no "greenhouse"gases in the Atmosphere. However, based on the failure of the IPCC climate models to comport with actual temperature observations for at least 15 years, we question the IPCC position that doubling of CO2 will warm the Earth surface by 1.5⁰C to 4.5⁰C (3⁰F to 8⁰F). For example, I believe the true value (called "climate sensitivity") is only a half or a third of what the IPCC claims.
• FALSE CLAIM - Skeptics do not believe the Earth surface has warmed significantly since 1880. RESPONSE -  We do accept that average global surface temperatures have increased by at least 0.5⁰C (1⁰F) since pre-industrial times. Many of us think that the thermometer record is somewhat unreliable. It is a matter of official record that, in recent decades, old temperature data prior to the 1970's have been adjusted down by as much as 0.3⁰C (0.5⁰F) and date after the 1980's adjusted up, which has increased claimed net warming by a few tenths of a degree. NASA GISS and other official record-keepers say these "data adjustments" are valid, but many of us think they are self-serving. However, we could be wrong, and the net warming since 1880 might be as much as 0.8⁰C (1.5⁰F). 
• FALSE CLAIM - Skeptics do not believe that human activities have any part in causing the warming. RESPONSE - We do accept that unprecedented burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and some changes in land use, are responsible for a significant fraction of the actual warming. However, based on comparison of actual temperature observations with IPCC climate models, I am convinced that the majority of warming is due to natural causes and processes not under human control or influence.

Looking forward to your comments.

Ira Glickstein

"One Guy With a Marker..."

My granddaughter sent me a link to a video that claims:

“One Guy With A Marker Just Made The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete.”

I watched the video with interest. He says he has: “… An argument that leads to a conclusion even the most ardent skeptic and most panicked activist can agree on. No one I’ve shown it to so far has been able to poke a hole in it. …”

I found some logical errors in that video and posted This Topic to the world's most viewed climate website where it attracted some 17,000 page views and almost 200 comments, including this one:

[From John Coleman, Co-Founder of The Weather Channel]

Ira, please make a video that presents the counter argument so I can put the two videos together for a You Tube “gotcha”. This guy is getting lots of hits and needs to be answered on You Tube.

So, I made the suggested video, and here it is:


When John Coleman viewed my video he wrote:

Wow Ira. You did it and you did a great job of debunking the marker nut. I hope you get a lot of hits on You Tube. It is a huge job to debunk the bad science. We should all keep on trying every day. I am writing a daily blog, but maybe I need to make some new videos a well.

Indeed, within a couple days I had THOUSANDS of video views on You Tube! THANKS JOHN!
Click for John Coleman Weather Daily Blog

DECONSTRUCTION OF THE "ONE GUY WITH A MARKER ..." VIDEO




As the above frame grab from the One Guy With a Marker ... Video indicates, he divides the Global Warming debate into two extreme dichotomies:

• Global Climate Change (GCC) is “False” (Top Row) or “True” (Bottom Row), and
• We take Action “Yes” (Column A) or “No” (Column B)

Here are the results he gives for his four boxes:

1. GCC is False but we unnecessarily take Action. The result is a high “Cost” that results in a “Global Depression”.
2. GCC is False and we take No Action. The result is a happy face.
3. GCC is True and we take Action that stops GCC dead in its tracks. The result is a happy face.
4. GCC is True and we take No Action. The result is “CATASTROPHES [in the] ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIETAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, [and] and HEALTH” areas.

He ends with the inevitable: “The only choice is Column A” – we must take Action!


This is a great example of the well-known FALLACY OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE! Where EMOTION is used in place of REASON to give the viewer a false choice between two extremes.

“All or nothing”, “Camelot or Catastrophe” arguments have great emotional power in political discourse, where the (usually hidden) assumption is that some things are perfectly TRUE and others are perfectly FALSE. But the real world is mostly in shades of grey. He studiously avoids that complication, because, when shades of grey are considered, his argument, IMHO, falls apart.


Let us take a closer, more realistic look at his four boxes:

1. GLOBAL DEPRESSION: This box is included to make it appear he is being “fair” to Skeptics. He assumes that taking Action to stop GCC will be so costly that, if it turns out to have been unnecessary, the result will be a “Global Depression”. Certainly, maximum environmental spending will damage the world-wide economy, but I doubt that type of spending, alone, will trigger a “Global Depression”. When we get to box #3 we will see that he doesn’t really think so either!
2. HAPPY FACE: GCC is “False”, we take No Action, so all is well! But, is it? Does his “GCC” include NATURAL PROCESSES and CYCLES that have caused Global Warming (and Cooling), Floods (and Droughts), and Violent Storms (and Blessed Rain) prior to the advent of Humans on Earth, and before we Humans had the capability to affect the climate? Apparently not, else “GCC” could not be totally “False”. Therefore, by “GCC” he is referring ONLY to the HUMAN-CAUSED variety, totally ignoring the evidence from the geological, ice-core, and historical records of NATURAL Global Climate Change and some Catastrophes.
3. HAPPY FACE: This box is totally inconsistent with box #1! If Action to stop Human-Caused Global Warming is so costly as to cause a Global Depression in the first box, would it not also cause such a Global Depression in this box? So, why the Happy Face? Realistically, even if we in the US and other nations in the Developed World take maximum Action to reduce our CO2 emissions, it is totally unrealistic to expect those in the Developing World to do the same. Indeed, China, India, and other countries will continue to build power plants, nearly all of them coal-fired. CO2 levels are bound to continue their rapid increase for at least the coming several decades, no matter what we do.
4. TOTAL CATASTROPHE: This box is filled with terrible consequences and is intended to scare us into taking maximum Action. He assumes the worst-case Global Warming of several degrees predicted by Climate Models despite the failure of those Climate Models to predict the past 17 years of absolutely no net Global Warming. (The most realistic prediction is continued moderate change in Global Temperatures, mostly NATURAL but some small part HUMAN-CAUSED. As standards of living continue to improve world-wide, populations will stabilize which will allow reasonable action to be taken to moderate CO2 emissions, and Human Civilization will ADAPT to inevitable Natural and Human-Caused Climate Change as we have throughout history.)

Bottom Line: This “One Guy With A Marker” DID NOT MAKE “The Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete.” His failures of logic:

• He assumes HUMAN-CAUSED Climate Change is the only kind we need to worry about, which flies in the face of the fact that most Global Climate Change has been and continues to be NATURAL, and not under Human control or influence.
• He assumes costly Action to prevent GCC will cause a GLOBAL DEPRESSION (box #1) if GCC is “False”, but the same costly Action will cause a HAPPY FACE (box #3) if GCC is “True”. Box #3 contradicts box #1.
• He ignores the fact that GCC models have way over-predicted Global Warming. For example, taking 1979 (when worldwide Satellite temperature data came available) as a starting point, the average of 102 Global Climate Models predicted warming of 0.9°C (1.5°F) by 2013. Actual warming from 1979 to 2013 has been less than a quarter of that, and there has been no net Global Warming since 1997. During this time period, CO2 levels have continued their rapid rise. (See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/)
• He assumes “All or Nothing at all” and “Camelot or Catastrophe” which is the characteristic of irresponsible EMOTIONAL argument. He ignores the shades of grey in-between. He brings POLITICAL rhetoric to what should be a rational SCIENTIFIC discussion.

Ira Glickstein

Related: See Craven Attention, where Steve Mosher reports on the "Guy With a Marker ..." making a buffoon of himself at the AGU (American Geophysical Union).

Forget CO2 - US Executions and US Debt "Cause" Global Warming

This is my latest Topic published four days ago on WUWT the world's most viewed Climate Website. It has received nearly 4,000 page views and dozens of Comments!

From the "correlation is not causation" department.
Guest Posting by Ira Glickstein Since the Death Penalty was restored in the US in 1975, the Number of Executions per Year correlates with UAH Global Temperature Anomaly better than CO2 levels! So, if we want to reduce warming, cut the rate of capital crimes! (See graphic below.)

In the above graphic, the black line indicates US Executions per Year from 1975 to 2013 (Source: http://www.statisticbrain.com/death-penalty-statistics/ NAACP LDF “Death Row, U.S.A., Gallup Poll, Bureau of Justice Statistics"), the blue jagged line indicates monthly UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower Atmosphere from 1979 through 2013 and the red line shows the running centered 13-month average (Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2014-0-29-deg-c/).

In an earlier WUWT posting I showed that Total US Debt (public and private) as a percentage of US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) correlates with NASA GISS US Annual Mean Temperature Anomaly better than CO2 levels! So, if we want to reduce warming, cut the debt! (See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/forget-co2-us-debt-causes-warming/)
Therefore, based on the (faulty) idea that Correlation Implies Causation, we can solve Global Warming by reducing US debt and US capital crimes :^)

Ira Glickstein

Global Warming in Perspective

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, BUT NOT A BIG DEAL

1) Some of the net Global Warming since 1880 is undoubtedly due to human actions. The Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect is real and water vapor (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) are "greenhouse" gases.
2) The actual temperature rise and human responsibility for it have been exaggerated.  By their repeated and substantial "adjustments" to the US temperature record, the Official US Climate Team (NASA GISS) has admitted that it is unreliable.
3) Official Climate Theory is flawed because it is "handcuffed" to CO2 levels. None of the official Climate Models predicted the current 17-year "pause" in warming. CO2 levels continue to rise rapidly, but the predicted warming has not occurred. 

 I posted some of this material on 7 April at Watts Up With That, the world's most viewed climate website. In the first two days, it received almost five thousand page views and almost a hundred comments. Some commenters found my first chart confusing. The image above is a simplified version. I also presented some of this material to the "Civil Discourse Club" at the Colony Recreation Center in The Villages, FL on 7 April, and again at the Savannah Recreation Center on 14 April, with over 100 people at each venue. My PowerPoint Show is available for download: here

Going from left to right on the above graphic:

Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, responsible for about 59°F (33°C) warming. This is the Natural Process that makes life on Earth as we know it possible. The mean temperature on the surface of the Earth is about 59°F (33°C) warmer due to Atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation by "greenhouse" gases, and the subsequent "back-radiation" of some of this heat energy towards the Earth surface. (See my WUWT Visualizing series [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, and Molecules/Photons Light and Heat])

Ice Age Warming and Cooling, are Natural Cycles that have occurred about every 100,000 years according to the ice core records from the past 400,000 years. Since these cycles occurred well before humans appeared on Earth, they must be entirely natural. The climate is always changing, with up and down temperature jigs and jags at all time scales. The major Ice Age Cycles change temperatures over a range of about 13°F (7°C ).

Mean Global Warming Since 1880, According to the Official NASA GISS and IPCC Accounting, is 1.4°F (0.8°C). According to the IPCC, the majority of this Global Warming is due to human activities (mainly unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and land use that has reduced the albedo of the Earth). I have interpreted "majority" to mean about 70% and have therefore allocated 1°F (0.6°C) to Human-Causation and the remaining 0.4°F (0.2°C) to Natural Cycles.

Please notice that the Human-Caused warming is a minor uptick in temperature compared to the variations due to the Natural Cycles of Ice Age warming and cooling and the major Natural Process warming due to the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect!

Even that small amount of warming is most likely exaggerated and NASA GISS and the IPCC have the proportion of human-caused and natural backwards. Actual warming is most likely about 1.0°F (0.6°C), with about 0.8°F (0.5°C) due to Natural Cycles, and the remaining 0.2°F (0.1°C) due to Human-Causation. 

Move from New York to Florida, My wife and I experienced considerable warming when we retired from full-time employment and moved from Upstate New York to Central Florida. The average temperature in Florida is about 20°F (11°C ) warmer than that in New York. While not exactly "Global" Warming, this warming was certainly due to our Human-Caused decision to move south, and, of course, we enjoy the resulting moderately higher temperatures :^). Our voluntary move caused many times more degrees of warming than the global warming since 1880!

Yearly and Daily Warming and Cooling:  Natural Cycles of the YEARLY 43°F (24°C ) temperature range in Central Florida (July mean minus January mean), and Natural Cycles of the DAILY 19°F (11°C ) temperature range we experience here. Please notice that these ranges are much larger than the Natural Cycles of the Ice Ages, and they recur on a daily or yearly basis in the temperate zones of the Earth. Again, these daily and yearly temperature cycles cause many times more degrees of warming and cooling than all the global warming since 1880!


THE OFFICIAL TEMPERATURE RECORD IS UNRELIABLE


The blink chart below illustrates how US thermometer data from the early 1900's to 1998 has been "adjusted" by NASA GISS to COOL DOWN data prior to the 1970's and WARM UP data after the 1970's. Please note that 1998, the warmest year of the 1990's, is now shown as warmer than 1934, the warmest year of the 1930's. When the same chart was originally published in 1999 by the same US-government-supported institute, the relationship was reversed. The net change in this relationship is 1.154°F (0.641°C). Both charts were downloaded in March 2014 from http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ 


We know that the US thermometer record is so unreliable that it has had to be "adjusted" several times by the official US Climate "Team" at GISS, see The Past is Not What it Used to Be, and Skeptic Strategy. and Climate Change Controversy.

Unless we believe that the world temperature record is more reliable than the US record, it is likely the world record has also been similarly "adjusted". Therefore, I have discounted the GISS estimate of Global Warming by about 30%, so actual warming is about 1.0°F (0.6°C). I believe the IPCC has over-estimated Climate Sensitivity by a factor of two or three, so I have allocated the majority of the warming 0.8°F (0.5°C) to Natural Cycles, and the remaining 0.2°F (0.1°C) to Human-Causation.

PLEASE NOTE: I do not claim that the "adjustments" are wrong, only that the underlying temperature data is unreliable. If that data was reliable, there would be no need for the repeated re-analysis and "adjustments" that have been done by the official Climate Team.

OFFICIAL CLIMATE MODELS HAVE FAILED

We have had good satellite records of Global Temperatures since 1979, so we no longer need to rely on the unreliable terrestrial temperature record. As shown in the chart below, the satellite record (blue arrows) shows moderate warming from 1979 to about 1996, and then a "pause" in warming that continues to this day. The wiggly lines on the chart show the theoretical Climate Models, with the heavy red line (and the red arrow) indicating the average of all the models. All of the official Climate Models have failed because the underlying Climate Theory is flawed.


Climate Sensitivity is the Mean Temperature Rise expected if CO2 levels double. So far, from 1979 to the present, CO2 has increased from about 330 ppmv to nearly 400 ppmv, a 40% rise. If that rate of CO2 rise continues, as it almost certainly will given the rapid industrialization of China, India, and other countries, the 1979 CO2 level will double by 2060.
 

The IPCC claims Climate Sensitivity is in the range of 2.7°F (1.5°C) to 8.1°F (4.5°C), and their Climate Models reflect that range. As the chart above indicates, when their Climate Models are run from 1979 to 2013, the expected temperature rise is about 1.6°F (0.9°C) . However, the actual temperature rise since 1979 is only about 0.3°F (0.17°C) , a fraction of what was predicted!

Based on the evidence of this chart, that the IPCC has over-estimated Climate Sensitivity by at least a factor of two to three.  I believe actual Climate Sensitivity is closer to the range of 1.0°F (0.6°C) to 2.0°F (1.1°C).



THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD vs THE OFFICIAL CLIMATE THEORY
As Richard Feynman famously said,

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment it is wrong!

The Official Climate Theory is based on a gross over-estimate of CO2 Climate Sensitivity. Reliable satellite-based temperature DATA since 1979 proves that the Official Climate Theory is WRONG by a factor of at least two or three.

According to the Scientific Method, if your theory doesn't agree with the observational DATA, you need to change your THEORY.

The Official Climate Team seems to have changed the DATA!

Ira Glickstein 

Climate Change Controversy - Global Warming is REAL but NOT a Big DEAL

The following was posted on 7 April 2014 at Watts Up With That the world's most viewed climate website. In the first two days, it received almost five thousand page views and almost a hundred comments.

Guest Post by Ira Glickstein

Some of the net Global Warming since 1880 is undoubtedly due to human actions, but how much?

[My PowerPoint Show that includes the following graphic is available for download: here: It was presented to the "Civil Discourse Club" in The Villages, FL on 7 April at the Colony Recreation Center and is scheduled for a second presentation on 14 April at the Savannah Recreation Center.]

The height of the bars on the graphic indicates the relative magnitude of Natural Processes and Cycles (in BLUE) versus Human-Caused Warming (in RED). The scale on the left is in °C with corresponding °F on the right.

Going from left to right:

The first BLUE bar represents the Atmospheric “Greenhouse” Effect, responsible for about 59°F (33°C) warming. This is the Natural Process that makes life as we know it possible on Earth. The mean temperature on the surface of the Earth is about 59°F (33°C) warmer due to Atmospheric absorption of long-wave radiation by water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and other so-called "Greenhouse" gases, and the subsequent "back-radiation" of some of this heat energy towards the Earth surface. (See my WUWT Visualizing series [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, and Molecules/Photons Light and Heat])

The second bar represents the major Natural “Ice Age” Cycles that have occurred about every 100,000 years according to the ice core records from the past 400,000 years. The climate is always changing, with up and down temperature jigs and jags at all time scales. The major Ice Age Cycles change temperatures over a range of about 13°F (7°C ).

The third bar represents the Human-Caused Warming that my wife and I experienced when we retired from full-time employment and moved from Upstate New York to Central Florida. The average temperature in Florida is about 20°F (11°C ) warmer than that in New York. I miss cross-country skiing a bit, but, overall, we are happy here and we enjoy water aerobics. While not exactly "Global" Warming, this warming was certainly caused by our Human-Caused decision to move and, of course, we enjoy the resulting moderately higher temperatures :^).

The fourth and fifth bars represent the YEARLY 43°F (24°C ) temperature range (July mean minus January mean), and the DAILY 19°F (11°C ) temperature range we experience here in Central Florida. Please notice that these ranges are much larger than the Ice Age Cycles, and they recur on a daily or yearly basis.

The sixth bar represents the mean Global Warming since 1880 based on the official NASA GISS accounting. It is 1.4°F (0.8°C). According to the IPCC, the majority of this Global Warming is due to human activities (mainly unprecedented burning of fossil fuels and land use that has reduced the albedo of the Earth). I have interpreted "majority" to mean about 70% and have therefore allocated 1°F (0.6°C) to Human-Causation and the remaining 0.4°F (0.2°C) to Natural Cycles.

The seventh bar represents my personal opinion as to the actual Global Warming since 1880, discounting the “adjustments” made by the official Climate “Team” that I believe have inflated the temperature record. We know that the US thermometer record is so unreliable that it has had to be "adjusted" several times by the official US Climate "Team" at GISS, see The Past is Not What it Used to Be, and Skeptic Strategy. [caption id="attachment_40829" align="aligncenter" width="640"] 2007 email from Sato to Hansen details seven analyses of 1934 vs 1998. 1934 starts off with a 0.5ºC lead and ends up in a dead heat.[/caption]

The above GISS email from Makiko Sato to James Hansen details seven adjustments to the US thermometer record, made from 1999 to 2007. According to GISS, the very warm year 1998 was originally thought to be 0.541°C (0.97°F) COOLER than 1934, which, in a warming world, would be, let us say Inconvenient. It took multiple "adjustments" to bring them to a dead heat. Further adjustments to the thermometer records subsequent to the 2007 Sato email have brought 1998 up to a significant lead over 1934 :^).

When this email came to light due to a Freedom of Information request, it was explained away by Warmists as follows:

1) The adjustments correct for differing Times of OBServation (TOBS). OK, that could be true, but why did it take so many analyses to come to the correct result? It seems one or two would be sufficient. Also, the 1998 data has been warmed more by the TOBS adjustments than the 1934 data has been cooled. Are we to believe that TOBS was less standardized in 1998 than it was in 1934?

2) The US is only 2% of the Globe. Therefore, any adjustment to US data would have only a minor effect of Global data. True enough, but, if US data is so unreliable that it has had to be adjusted so much, are we to believe that world data is any better? Does anyone really think that years-old data from Asia, Africa, South America is more reliable than US data? That ocean data based on some seaman dropping a bucket overboard, hauling it back, and sticking a thermometer into it, is any better than US thermometer data?

So, unless we believe that the world temperature record is more reliable than the US record, it is likely the world record has also been similarly "adjusted". Therefore, I have discounted the GISS estimate of Global Warming by about 30%, so actual warming is about 1.0°F (0.6°C). As for allocation of this actual warming to Human- vs Natural-Causes, I believe the IPCC has over-estimated Climate Sensitivity by a factor of two or three, so I have allocated the majority of the warming 0.8°F (0.5°C) to Natural Cycles, and the remaining 0.2°F (0.1°C) to Human-Causation.

I'd appreciate comments on my estimates and conclusions. advTHANKSance

Ira

Global Warming - REAL, but NOT a Big DEAL

[UPDATE: I reposted this at WUWT, the most viewed Climate website in the world, and have over 10,000 page views and 230 comments.]
We've reached a turning point where it is hard for any Global Warming Alarmist to claim (with a straight face) that the world as we know it is about to end in a decade or two or three unless we stop burning fossil fuels. Anyone deluded or foolish enough to make such a claim would be laughed at by many audiences.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL

Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect is a scientific fact!

BUT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A BIG DEAL

As the animated graphic clearly indicates, the theoretical climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are handcuffed to inordinately high estimates of climate sensitivity (how much temperatures are expected to rise given a doubling of CO2). Since the advent of good satellite-based global temperature data in 1979, observed temperatures have risen at a fraction of the IPCC predicted rate even as CO2 continues to rise. Relax, there is not and never has been any near-term "tipping point". The actual Earth Climate System is far less sensitive to CO2 than claimed the IPCC climate theory, as represented by their computer models. Global Warming since 1880 is mainly due to Natural Cycles and Processes not under human control. Yes, the same Natural Cycles and Processes that were responsible for the many Ice Age cycles that repeatedly occurred about every 100,000 years or so.

MY JANUARY 2014 PRESENTATION 

By a stroke of good fortune, last week I was scheduled to present "Visualizing the Atmospheric 'Greenhouse' Effect - Global warming is real, but how much is due to human activities and how big is the risk?" to the Philosophy Club in the Central Florida retirement community where I live. This is a great time for Global Warming Skeptics to put the Alarmists in their place.

Everyone in the highly interactive and supportive audience was aware of newspaper and TV reports of the drama of those ill-fated Global Warming "Research" activists whose Russian ship, the Academik Shokalskiy, got stuck in the summer ice of the Antarctic. (Fortunately, those people are safe, having been rescued by a helicopter from a Chinese icebreaker.) In addition to the Antarctic adventure gone wrong, in the week leading up to and following my talk, the media was overrun by stories of the "polar vortex" literally freezing large parts of the US and even causing Florida temperatures to drop below 30°F.

Of course, we realize that the cold wave is only anecdotal evidence and "weather is not climate". However, photos and videos of researchers stuck in the Antarctic summer ice as well as scenes of American life frozen in place for days on end, when combined with clear and irrefutable evidence of a slowdown in warming since 1979 and no statistically significant warming since 1996 (as depicted in the graphic above), has considerable emotional impact.

My animated PowerPoint Show, which should run on any Windows PC, is available for download here. (NOTE: I knew that many members of The Philosophy Club audience, while highly intelligent and informed, are not particularly scientifically astute. Therefore, I kept to the basics and  invited questions as I proceeded. Since most of them think in Fahrenheit, I was careful to give temperatures in that system. By contrast, my 2011 talk to the more scientifically astute members of our local Science and Technology Club Skeptic Strategy for Talking about Global Warming was more technical. Both presentations make use of animated PowerPoint charts and you are free to download and use them as you wish.)

My presentation is based on my five-part series for the most viewed climate website in the world, "Watts Up With That" (WUWT) where I am a Guest Contributor. The series is entitled "Visualizing the 'Greenhouse Effect'" - 1 - A Physical Analogy, 2 - Atmospheric Windows, 3 - Emission Spectra, 4 - Molecules and Photons, and 5 - Light and Heat.  The series, which ran in 2011, generated tens of thousands of page views at WUWT, along with thousands of comments.

I wrote the series because WUWT is a "skeptic" website and attracts some viewers who reject the basic physics of the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect. (The owner of WUWT, Anthony Watts, like me, accepts the basic physics and the fact that some of the warming of the past century is indeed due to human activities, such as unprecedented burning of fossil fuels that have raised CO2 levels. However, we are skeptical about how much the Earth Surface has actually warmed, and how big a risk is posed by moderate increases in CO2 and temperature.)

HOW A REAL GREENHOUSE WORKS

I explained how a real physical Greenhouse works and how that is both similar and different from the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect. The Greenhouse descriptions I learned in high school, as well as those available on the Internet, consider only the RADIATIVE effect. The glass roof of the Greenhouse allows visible light to pass through freely, heating the soil, plants, and air, but is opaque to the resultant infrared radiation, which is partly re-radiated back down into the Greenhouse, warming it further.  That part is true, but far from the whole story. The MAIN reason a Greenhouse stays warm is that it is airtight to restrict CONVECTION and it is insulated to restrict CONDUCTION. In fact, it is possible to construct a successful Greenhouse using a roof made from materials that allow both visible and infrared to pass freely, but is impossible to make a working Greenhouse that is not both airtight and insulated.

HOW THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT WORKS

All warm objects emit radiation at a wavelength dependent upon the temperature of the object. The Sun, at around 10,000 °F, emits "short-wavelength" infrared radiation, centered around 1/2 micron (one millionth of a meter). The soil, plants, and air in the Greenhouse, at around 60 to 100 °F, emit "long wavelength" radiation, centered around 10 microns (with most of the energy between 4 and 25 microns).   

The Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect works because:

1. Short-wavelength radiation from the Sun passes freely through the gases that make up  the Atmosphere,
2. About a third of this Sunlight is reflected back by white clouds, dust, and light-colored objects on the Surface, and that energy is lost to Space,
3. The remaining two-thirds of  the Sunlight energy is absorbed by the Sea and Land Surface and causes it to warm,
4. The warm Surface cools by emitting long-wavelength radiation at the Bottom of the Atmosphere, and this radiation passes towards the Top of the Atmosphere, where it is ultimately lost to Space,
5. On the way to the Top of the Atmosphere, much of this radiation is absorbed by so-called "Greenhouse" gases (mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide) which causes the Atmosphere to warm,
6. The warmed Atmosphere emits infrared radiation in all directions, some into Space where it is lost, and some back towards the Surface where it is once again absorbed and further warms the Surface.
7. In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)

THANK GOODNESS OR THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT

If not for the warming effect of "Greenhouse" gases, the Surface of the Earth would average about -1 °F, which would prevent life as we know it. This effect is responsible for about 60 degrees F of warming.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth Surface has warmed about 1.5 °F since good thermometer data became available around 1880. Some skeptics (including me) believe the actual warming is closer to 1 °F, and that government agencies have adjusted the thermometer record to exaggerate the warming by 30% or more.

However, it doesn't really matter whether the actual warming is 1 °F or 1.5 °F because we are arguing about only 0.5 °F, which is less than 1% of the warming due to the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect.

HOW SENSITIVE IS THE CLIMATE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES?

The IPCC claims that the majority of the warming since 1880 is due to human activities. It is true that we are burning unprecedented amounts of fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas), and that we are making land use changes that may reduce the albedo (reflectiveness) of the Surface. Most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2 (a 40% rise from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million by volume) is due to human activities.

The IPCC claims that Climate Sensitivity (the average increase in Surface temperatures due to a doubling of CO2) is between 3 °F and 8 °F.  Some skeptics (including me) believe they are off by at least a factor of two, and possibly a factor of three, and that Climate Sensitivity is closer to 1 °F to 3 °F.

As evidence for our conclusions, we point to the fact that virtually ALL of the IPCC climate models have consistently over-estimated future temperature predictions as compared to the actual temperature record. Indeed, for the past 17 years as CO2 levels continue their rapid climb, temperatures have leveled off, which is proof that Natural Cycles, not under human control or influence, have cancelled out warming due to CO2 increases. Thus, Natural Cycles must have a larger effect than CO2.

VISUALIZING THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT

As I noted above, I wrote the "Visualizing" series for WUWT (1 - A Physical Analogy, 2 - Atmospheric Windows, 3 - Emission Spectra, 4 - Molecules and Photons, and 5 - Light and Heat) because some WUWT viewers are "Disbelievers" who have had an "equal and opposite" reaction to the "end of the world" excesses of the Global Warming "Alarmists".  By failing to understand and accept the basic science of the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect, they have, IMHO, "thrown the baby out with the bathwater".

1 - A Physical Analogy

Albert Einstein was a great theoretical physicist, with all the requisite mathematical tools. However, he rejected purely mathematical abstraction and resorted to physical analogy for his most basic insights. For example, he imagined a man in a closed elevator being transported to space far from any external mass and then subjected to accelerating speeds. That man could not tell the difference between gravity on Earth and acceleration in space, thus, concluded Einstein, gravity and acceleration are equivalent, which is the cornerstone of his theory of relativity. Einstein never fully bought into the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics that he and others have called quantum weirdness and spooky action at a distance. He had trouble accepting a theory that did not comport with anything he considered a reasonable physical analogy!

So, if you have trouble accepting the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect because of the lack of a good physical analogy, you are in fine company.

Well, getting back to the Atmospheric "Greenhouse Effect, a "disbelieving" commenter on WUWT, suggested we think of the Sunlight as truckloads of energy going from the Sun to the Earth Surface, and the infrared radiation from the Surface as equal truckloads going the other way. How, he asked, could these equal and opposite truckloads do anything but cancel each other out as far as the amount of energy on the Surface of the Earth? In reply, I posted a comment with an analogy of truckloads of orange juice, representing short-wave radiation from Sun to Earth, and truckloads of blueberry juice, representing longwave radiation between Earth and the Atmosphere and back out to Space.

That thought experiment triggered my creativity. I imagined the Sun as a ball-pitching machine, throwing Yellow balls towards the "Earth" Surface (representing short-wave radiation) and Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation) bouncing back towards Space and interacting with the Atmosphere. The graphic below is one of my depictions of the physical analogy. Follow this link for more graphics and detail.


I imagined the Earth as a well-damped scale. The Yellow balls would bounce off the Surface and turn into Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation as the Earth absorbed the short-wave radiation and then emitted an equal quantity of long-wave radiation). The scale would read "1" unit.

If there was no Atmosphere, or if the Atmosphere contained no "Greenhouse" gases to obstruct the flight of the Purple balls, they would fly out towards Space.

I then imagined the Atmosphere as an obstacle that absorbed the Purple balls, split them in two, and emitted half of the smaller balls to Space and the other half back towards the Earth. The balls going towards Earth would be absorbed, further heating the Earth, and the warmed Earth would emit them back towards the Atmosphere. The process would be repeated with the balls being absorbed by "Greenhouse" gases in the Atmosphere, and then emitted with half going out to Space, and half back to the Earth. The sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +1/16 ... = 2 (approximately), so the scale reads "2" units.

Thus, in my simplified analogy, the "Greenhouse" gases in the "Atmosphere" cause the scale reading to double. So, the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect causes the Earth Surface to be warmer than it would be absent the "Greenhouse" gases. I think Einstein would be pleased!  Read more detail at WUWT, including the 340 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...,

2 - Atmospheric Windows

A real greenhouse has windows. So does the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. They are similar in that they allow Sunlight in and restrict the outward flow of thermal energy. However, they differ in the mechanism. A real greenhouse primarily restricts heat escape by preventing convection while the “greenhouse effect” heats the Earth because “greenhouse gases” (GHG) absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards Earth.
There are two main “windows” in the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. The first, the Visible Light Window, on the left side of the graphic, allows visible and near-visible light from the Sun to pass through with small losses, and the second, the Longwave Window, on the right, allows the central portion of the longwave radiation band from the Earth to pass through with small losses, while absorbing and re-emitting the left and right portions.
Sunlight Energy In = Thermal Energy Out
The graphic is an animated depiction of the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” process.

On the left side:
(1) Sunlight streams through the Atmosphere towards the surface of the Earth.
(2) A portion of the Sunlight is reflected by clouds and other high-albedo surfaces and heads back through the Atmosphere towards Space. The remainder is absorbed by the Surface of the Earth, warming it.
(3) The reflected portion is lost to Space.
On the right side:
(1) The warmed Earth emits longwave radiation towards the Atmosphere. According to the first graphic, above, this consists of thermal energy in all bands ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ.
(2) The ~10μ portion passes through the Atmosphere with litttle loss. The ~7μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by H2O, and the 15μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by CO2 and H2O. The absorbed radiation heats the H2O and CO2 molecules and, at their higher energy states, they collide with the other molecules that make up the air, mostly nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), and argon (A) and heat them by something like conduction. The molecules in the heated air emit radiation in random directions at all bands (~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ). The ~10μ photons pass, nearly unimpeded, in whatever direction they happen to be emitted, some going towards Space and some towards Earth. The ~7μ and ~15μ photons go off in all directions until they run into an H2O or CO2 molecule, and repeat the absorption and re-emittance process, or until they emerge from the Atmosphere or hit the surface of the Earth.
(3) The ~10μ photons that got a free-pass from the Earth through the Atmosphere emerge and their energy is lost to Space. The ~10μ photons generated by the heating of the air emerge from the top of the Atmosphere and their energy is lost to Space, or they impact the surface of the Earth and are re-absorbed. The ~7μ and ~15μ generated by the heating of the air also emerge from the top or bottom of the Atmosphere, but there are fewer of them because they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted, each time with some transfered to the central ~10μ portion of the longwave band.
 the infrared (long-wavelength). Read more detail at WUWT, including the 489 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

3 - Emission Spectra

The Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” has been analogized to a blanket that insulates the Sun-warmed Earth and slows the rate of heat transmission, thus increasing mean temperatures above what they would be absent “greenhouse gases” (GHGs). Perhaps a better analogy would be an electric blanket that, in addition to its insulating properties, also emits thermal radiation both down and up. The graphic below, based upon actual measurements of long-wave radiation as measured by a satellite LOOKING DOWN from the Top of the Atmosphere as well as from the Surface LOOKING UP from the Bottom of the Atmmsphere, depicts the situation.
,
Description of graphic (from bottom to top):
Earth Surface: Warmed by shortwave (~1/2μ) radiation from the Sun, the surface emits upward radiation in the ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ regions of the longwave band. This radiation approximates a smooth “blackbody” curve that peaks at the wavelength corresponding to the surface temperature.
Bottom of the Atmosphere: On its way out to Space, the radiation encounters the Atmosphere, in particular the GHGs, which absorb and re-emit radiation in the ~7μ and ~15μ regions in all directions. Most of the ~10μ radiation is allowed to pass through.
The lower violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 8.1 in Petty and based on measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking UP) indicates how the bottom of the Atmosphere re-emits selected portions back down towards the surface of the Earth. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300ºK (equivalent to 27ºC or 80ºF). Note how the ~7μ and ~15μ regions approximate that curve, while much of the ~10μ region is not re-emitted downward.
“Greenhouse Gases”: The reason for the shape of the downwelling radiation curve is clear when we look at the absorption spectra for the most important GHGs: H2O, H2O, H2O, … H2O, and CO2. (I’ve included multiple H2O’s because water vapor, particularly in the tropical latitudes, is many times more prevalent than carbon dioxide.)
Note that H2O absorbs at up to 100% in the ~7μ region. H2O also absorbs strongly in the ~15μ region, particularly above 20μ, where it reaches 100%. CO2 absorbs at up to 100% in the ~15μ region.
Neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in the ~10μ region.
Since gases tend to re-emit most strongly at the same wavelength region where they absorb, the ~7μ and ~15μ are well-represented, while the ~10μ region is weaker.
Top of the Atmosphere: The upper violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 6.6 in Petty and based on satellite measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking DOWN) indicates how the top of the Atmosphere passes certain portions of radiation from the surface of the Earth out to Space and re-emits selected portions up towards Space. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300ºK. Note that much of the ~10μ region approximates a 295ºK curve while the ~7μ region approximates a cooler 260ºK curve. The ~15μ region is more complicated. Part of it, from about 17μ and up approximates a 260ºK or 270ºK curve, but the region from about 14μ to 17μ has had quite a big bite taken out of it. Note how this bite corresponds roughly with the CO2 absorption spectrum.
See more graphics and detail at WUWT, including the 476 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

4 - Molecules and Photons

In this part, we consider the interaction between air molecules, including Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2), with Photons of various wavelengths. This may help us visualize how energy, in the form of Photons radiated by the Sun and the Surface of the Earth, is absorbed and re-emited by Atmospheric molecules.

The animated graphic has eight frames, as indicated by the counter in the lower right corner. Molecules are symbolized by letter pairs or triplets and Photons by ovals and arrows. The view is of a small portion of the cloud-free Atmosphere.

1. During the daytime, Solar energy enters the Atmosphere in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 0.1μ (micron – millionth of a meter) to 4μ, which is called “shortwave” radiation and is represented as ~1/2μ and symbolized as orange ovals. Most of this energy gets a free pass through the cloud-free Atmosphere. It continues down to the Surface of the Earth where some is reflected back by light areas (not shown in the animation) and where most is absorbed and warms the Surface.
2. Since Earth’s temperature is well above absolute zero, both day and night, the Surface radiates Photons in all directions with the energy distributed approximately according to a “blackbody” at a given temperature. This energy is in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 4μ to 50μ, which is called “longwave” radiation and is represented as ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ and symbolized as violet, light blue, and purple ovals, respectively. The primary “greenhouse” gases (GHG) are Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The ~7μ Photon is absorbed by an H2O molecule because Water Vapor has an absorption peak in that region, the ~10μ Photon gets a free pass because neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in that region, and one of the 15μ Photons gets absorbed by an H2O molecule while the other gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule because these gases have absorption peaks in that region.
3. The absorbed Photons raise the energy level of their respective molecules (symbolized by red outlines).
4. The energized molecules re-emit the Photons in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
5. This frame and the next two illustrate another way Photons are emitted, namely due to collisions between energized GHG molecules and other air molecules. As in frame (2) the Surface radiates Photons in all directions and various wavelengths.
6. The Photons cause the GHG molecules to become energized and they speed up and collide with other gas molecules, energizing them. NOTE: In a gas, the molecules are in constant motion, moving in random directions at different speeds, colliding and bouncing off one another, etc. Indeed the “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the molecules. In this animation, the gas molecules are fixed in position because it would be too confusing if they were all shown moving and because the speed of the Photons is so much greater than the speed of the molecules that they hardly move in the time indicated.
7. The energized air molecules emit radiation at various wavelengths and in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
8. Having emitted the energy, the molecules cool down.

Read more detail at WUWT, including the 743 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

5 - Light and Heat

Solar “light” radiation in = Earth “heat” radiation to Space out! That’s old news to those of us who understand all energy is fungible (may be converted to different forms of energy) and energy/mass is conserved (cannot be created nor destroyed).
My Visualizing series [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, and Molecules/Photons] has garnered almost 2000 comments, mostly positive. I’ve learned a lot from WUWT readers who know more than I do. However, some commenters seem to have been taken in by scientific-sounding objections to the basic science behind the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”. Their objections seemed to add more heat than light to the discussion. This posting is designed to get back to basics and perhaps transform our heated arguments into more enlightened understanding :^)

Solar "light" energy in is equal to Earth "heat" energy out.

Read more detail at WUWT, including the 958 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

ANSWERING THREE OBJECTIONS TO BASIC ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” SCIENCE

First of all, let me be clear where I am coming from. I’m a Lukewarmer-Skeptic who accepts that H2O, CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases” in the Atmosphere do cause the mean temperature of the Earth Surface and Atmosphere to be higher than they would be if everything was the same (Solar radiation, Earth System Albedo, …) but the Atmosphere was pure nitrogen.

The main scientific question for me, is how much does the increase in human-caused CO2 and human-caused albedo reduction increase the mean temperature above what it would be with natural cycles and processes? My answer is “not much”, because perhaps 0.1ºC to 0.2ºC of the supposed 0.8ºC increase since 1880 is due to human activities. The rest is due to natural cycles and processes over which we humans have no control. The main public policy question for me, is how much should we (society) do about it? Again, my answer is “not much”, because the effect is small and a limited increase in temperatures and CO2 may turn out to have a net benefit.

So, my motivation for this Visualizing series is not to add to the Alarmist “the sky is falling” panic, but rather to help my fellow Skeptics avoid the natural temptation to fall into an “equal and opposite” falsehood, which some of those on my side, who I call “Disbelievers”, do when they fail to acknowledge the basic facts of the role of H2O and CO2 and other gases in helping to keep temperatures in a livable range.

Objection #1: Visual and near-visual radiation is merely “light” which lacks the “quality” or “oomph” to impart warmth to objects upon which it happens to fall.

Answer #1: A NASA webpage targeted at children is sometimes cited because they say the near-IR beam from a TV remote control is not warm to the touch. Of course, that is not because it is near-visual radiation, but rather because it is very low power. All energy is fungible, and can be changed from one form to another. Thus, the 240 Watts/m^2 of visible and near-visible Solar energy that reaches and is absorbed by the Earth System, has the effect of warming the Earth System exactly as much as an equal number of Watts/m^2 of “thermal” mid- and far-IR radiation.

Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.

Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact.

Objection #3: The Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” is fictional. A glass greenhouse works mainly by preventing or reducing convection and the Atmosphere does not work that way at all.

Answer #3: I always try to put “scare quotes” around the word “greenhouse” unless referring to the glass variety because the term is misleading. Yes, a glass greenhouse works by restricting convection, and the fact that glass passes shortwave radiation and not longwave makes only a minor contribution.

Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it. But, enough of semantics. Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.

Ira Glickstein