Global Warming and Chaos Theory

[vanesch]

We do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So we have causation there as well. Albedo will certainly make a difference as well. But that does not discount the last 100 years of optics.

We don't know what is the *real effect* of CO2. There is circular reasoning here. Of course I don't doubt that CO2, in a stationary atmosphere, has a radiative heating effect. That's given by MODTRAN for instance, and its effect is small. All the rest: effects on convection, on water vapor, on land response, on ocean currents, on whatever, are complicated problems, and it is not clear what the total effect is. So the "physical/chemical" effect of CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is, in very idealized circumstances, limited to the about 0.5 - 1 degree for a doubling, given by MODTRAN.

And then the reasoning becomes circular: 1) BECAUSE we see a correlation, recently, between rising CO2 levels and temperature, this must be caused by CO2, so this is then: observation --> strong greenhouse gas effect and 2) because CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, this proves that the correlation observed is a causal effect.

But this has nothing to do with the small greenhouse effect of CO2 in an idealised atmosphere as shown by MODTRAN. You can't at the same use observations to prove that CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas (under the assumption that there is a causal link), and then use that conclusion to show that there was a causal link. In other words, you take as a premise, the conclusion you want to reach, and then, no wonder, you arrive at some elements that confirm your hypothesis.

 

[Bored Wombat]

Another example: is it because most of my pocket change comes from the local supermarket that they are the ones who determine how much money I have?

That analogy is inappropriate, because there are only 3 sources or sinks of fossil fuels. Human activity, the oceans, and the terrestrial biosphere. The source of the atmospheric increase is from fossil fuels.

There's no equivalent of your investments or salary in this system.

THAT is the real "level setter". This has nothing to do with what is the origin of (part of) atmospheric CO₂ - which is undeniably from fossil fuels.

Well, as you say you have no evidence for that.

Whereas we know that in the past for approximately current temperatures, CO2 concentratiions should be about 300 or 320ppm, not 385ppm:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/luethi2008/fig2.jpg

So we know that it is not caused by temperature.

Especially because all proportions taken into account, the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 is small compared to the entire inventory of CO2 in the circuit

But it is large compared to the increase in atmospheric concentration.

And then there are paleo data where the time correlation is the opposite (temperature rises first, and then CO2 follows

Right. So we know that the current warming is not like the ends of past ice ages, because the CO₂ has moved first.

Which fits with our other understandings, because Homo Neanderthalensis didn't have coal mines.

- although this was first presented the other way around).

You claim that this was known and held back from publication? I recall a paper talking very tentatively about it. It seemed to me that it was published as soon as it was noticed. Of course the age of the air in an ice core (from which the atmospheric CO₂ concentration is measured) is younger than the age of the ice (from which local temperature at the time of freezing is inferred), so they had reason to state it tentatively.

From what do you claim that this finding was held back?

Hey, human computing power also started rising before temperature rose. Is computing power therefor a drive of global temperature.

A correlation is not a causal link per se. It could be, but it could also not be.

That is true, but in this case the causal link is known and understood. It is the greenhouse effect.

 

[vanesch]

One: While this point is valid, this point didn't quite become clear in the Andre's post where he showed the hockey stick with direct measurements removed, and spoke about scientific honesty. It looked like he was setting the resent temperature rise under question, which is quite different from saying that reconstructions would have smoothened out possible spikes already earlier.

I'm not Andre :-) Andre thinks that there is no AGW. I'm agnostic about AGW, I'm only indicating that what is presented - especially by the IPCC - is not scientifically rigorous as Feynman would have liked it, in that one would have tried to show oneself wrong. On the contrary, the IPCC is built up as an argument for AGW, not as a critical scientific analysis. I surely find much material presented by the IPCC very suggestive, but one should then be aware that it was presented TO MAKE A CASE, and not as a scientific analysis. Nevertheless, it is always presented as if it were the ultimate scientific analysis that PROVES AGW beyond doubt, and anyone being critical towards it is almost seen as a crackpot (or a heretic?).

This is like listening to the lawyer or listening to the judge. The lawyer builds a case. The judge tries to see the truth. When the lawyer is confused with the judge, truth is lost.

I'm just trying to see the holes in the lawyer's argument - as a judge would do.

Two: While the possible existence of earlier spikes cannot be denied by using the temperature reconstructions, on the other hand, the resent temperature rise has been modeled by taking into account the man made greenhouse emissions. So isn't it then quite unlikely, that the resent temperature rise would be only a one natural spike among the many other spikes that we don't see?

Yes, and those models are built exactly upon effects by CO2 as taken from these data. That's the circular reasoning I pointed towards in another post here.

But are you trying to say, that convincingly alarming information wouldn't exist?

I think there is more than enough SUGGESTIVE information to be indicative that the hypothesis of AGW is a plausibility, and given its potential disastrous effects, I think that until we find out more, we should take this into account in our policies.

However, "alarming" and "scientifically sound" are not the same. I think the scientific case for AGW is far from closed, and I wouldn't be surprised that it turns out not to be there, or be there to a much lesser extend than claimed now. It could also be there the way people present it. But the honest answer is that we don't know yet. Let us say that most of the material presented by things such as the IPCC is not INCOMPATIBLE with the existence of AGW - but you would not expect otherwise from a lawyer's case, would you ?
I am appalled at the fact that many "proofs" presented by the IPCC have logical holes in them which are not adressed.

When presenting AGW AS IF IT WERE A SCIENTIFIC FACT BEYOND DOUBT - which I try to show it isn't - we are committing scientific dishonesty.

 

[Bored Wombat]

But this has nothing to do with the small greenhouse effect of CO2 in an idealised atmosphere as shown by MODTRAN. You can't at the same use observations to prove that CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas (under the assumption that there is a causal link), and then use that conclusion to show that there was a causal link. In other words, you take as a premise, the conclusion you want to reach, and then, no wonder, you arrive at some elements that confirm your hypothesis.

This is correct to within certain boundaries.

The climate sensitivity might be as low as 1.5 or 1.6°C per doubling of CO₂, or it might be as high as 5.5 or even 6°C per doubling. But outside that range it just doesn't fit the observational and paleohistorical data.

So yes, it is poorly known, for the reason you describe, but you exaggerate the effect of this uncertainty. Even a 1.5°C per doubling, with the increase in CO2 concentration since the anthropogenic ear of 385/280 = 1.375 or 0.46 doublings gives a warming of 0.69°C due to CO₂ increase alone. Which is probably most of the observed warming, even taking into account that 60% of the climate's response to an increase in radiative forcing isn't complete for 25-50 years (the large error here due again to the error in climate sensitivity to CO₂ - so it will be shorter times if climate sensitivity is low.)

The bottom line is that we certainly don't know it all, but we do know that the current warming is very likely to be mostly anthropogenic.

 

[vanesch]

That analogy is inappropriate, because there are only 3 sources or sinks of fossil fuels. Human activity, the oceans, and the terrestrial biosphere. The source of the atmospheric increase is from fossil fuels.

But do you know their reactions to other parameters like temperature accurately enough as to be able to show that the difference is DRIVEN by the fossil-fuel consumption ? The source of atmospheric CO2 is partly from fossil fuels, but do you know precisely how oceans and land are reacting to CO2 concentrations and cannot act as a regulator ?

There's no equivalent of your investments or salary in this system.

Can't oceans or the terrestrial biosphere be "sources" in the sense of being less of a sink than they used to be just because of regulation properties ? Imagine that oceans "want" to have a higher level of atmospheric CO2 for one or other reason. If there wouldn't be any fossil fuel production, they would then outgas more CO2. Because there is fossil fuel CO2, they don't outgas as much, but they even take up some. But they still set the level.

Well, as you say you have no evidence for that.

I don't have to. YOU are making a case. You have to show that no such evidence can exist. That's my point. Before you have a proof, you have to have explored all possible other explanations.

Whereas we know that in the past for approximately current temperatures, CO2 concentratiions should be about 300 or 320ppm, not 385ppm:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/luethi2008/fig2.jpg

So we know that it is not caused by temperature.

It is not caused by temperature, but then it comes 600 years (I think? From the top of my head) AFTER the temperature increase, and is almost perfectly correlated. This isn't directly a demonstration that CO2 DROVE temperature. If anything causal here, it is temperature which drives CO2.
So you are just talking about the quantitative effect. The world is different now. Land usage is different. The response might be different. The exact dynamics hasn't been elucidated. It is not because you've seen a different response in the past that this is a PROOF that this time the quantitatively different response (in as much as the proxies are numerically accurate) is FOR SURE not caused partly by temperature. That could only be the case if you have a perfect physical dynamical model of the relationship between temperature, land usage and CO2 content. Hell, the proxy might even have a cross-correlation! Maybe the proxy for CO2 calibration is partly dependent on temperature or vice versa. How can you know ?

But it is large compared to the increase in atmospheric concentration.

Yes, if you can quantitatively demonstrate that the regulatory mechanisms are overwhelmed, then indeed this indicates that fossil fuel combustion contributes - at least temporarily - to the atmospheric CO2 concentration. But the ARGUMENTS PRESENTED don't prove this. This is my point.

Right. So we know that the current warming is not like the ends of past ice ages, because the CO₂ has moved first.

Nevertheless, before the 600 year shift was known, these data were presented as PROOF THAT CO2 DROVE TEMPERATURE. It was one of those "undeniable proofs" which fell on their face.

Which fits with our other understandings, because Homo Neanderthalensis didn't have coal mines.

This is again taking your conclusion as an argument. You ASSUME that it is human-driven CO2 which is now the main cause of rising of atmospheric CO2, and you analyse paleodata using this, and then you arrive to the conclusion that, well, it must be human-driven CO2 which is now the main cause of rising atmospheric CO2. Again, the only real proof would be if you had a very good physical model which could predict CO2 responses as a function of temperature (NOT using these paleodata of course), and then if you could predict these effects, and show that it also explains current rise as a function of fossil-fuel combustion. Just fitting a dynamical black box model to paleo data, and seeing the difference with now, is no proof. It is at most suggestive.

You claim that this was known and held back from publication? I recall a paper talking very tentatively about it. It seemed to me that it was published as soon as it was noticed. Of course the age of the air in an ice core (from which the atmospheric CO₂ concentration is measured) is younger than the age of the ice (from which local temperature at the time of freezing is inferred), so they had reason to state it tentatively.

I don't mean any intentional dishonesty. I only see that those same data were once used as a "proof" that CO2 drove temperature. Another "hockeystick" if you want. And then it turned out to be the other way around.

At no point I have seen the IPCC hammering that their previous argument was ERRONEOUS and turned out to be FALSE. I'm not claiming that the finding was withheld, I'm only pointing out the difference in publicity that was given to the CO2 --> temperature correlation and then the fact that it was discovered that this was backward.

That is true, but in this case the causal link is known and understood. It is the greenhouse effect.

The problem is that this is again circular: it is used as a PROOF for the greenhouse effect, and at the same time it is EXPLAINED BY that greenhouse effect.

 

[vanesch]

So yes, it is poorly known, for the reason you describe, but you exaggerate the effect of this uncertainty. Even a 1.5°C per doubling, with the increase in CO2 concentration since the anthropogenic ear of 385/280 = 1.375 or 0.46 doublings gives a warming of 0.69°C due to CO₂ increase alone.

MODTRAN gives you less than this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1358505&postcount=2

Andre calculated this, and I also did the exercise myself. You get 0.77 K per doubling of CO2.

So even the 1.5 degree per doubling is not clear, unless you *assume* that current temperature increase is *entirely* due to human driven effects, and then after the fact you use this number to *prove* that it is human-caused.

The bottom line is that we certainly don't know it all, but we do know that the current warming is very likely to be mostly anthropogenic.

I have seen suggestive evidence for this in the sense that some observations are compatible with this hypothesis. However, most stuff I've seen as a *proof* seem to me far from being a proof, often logically flawed, and very often circular. This is exactly what you would expect if you take "suggestive evidence compatible with" and try to turn that into "proof that it can only be this" because the logic behind both is different. If you take suggestive evidence, you START with your working hypothesis, and you DERIVE certain properties which are then confronted with data. In as much as the data don't contradict this, you haven't falsified your hypothesis, and hence the evidence is *suggestive*. That's ok. However, when you take observations which are taken as PROOF of certain aspects of your working hypothesis, you don't work that way: you try to find all alternative reasonable working hypotheses, and you try to show that all those alternatives are definitely falsified by current data. In doing so, you cannot mix of course your preferred working hypothesis in the falsification, and that's what is very often done.

 

[Andre]

I think that the scientific method is a bit comparable with the battle in court, is the defendant innocent or guilty? There can be an abundance of evidence for guilty. But only one is enough to prove innocence. There can be a motive, an opportunity, a lack of alibi, found objects, etc, etc. But if the DNA doesn't match, it's all over, innocent, period!

You can fill threads and threads with melting glaciers, sea levels, arctic sea ice, polar bears, and anything else that seems to be caused by global warming but if there is only one single piece of evidence that CO2 did not do the job, it's all over, innocent, period!

That evidence, as Vanesch indicated is in the century scale CO2 lag in the ice cores. Now the standard but wrong response of the 'Eco warriors' is "<yawn> and <sigh> How many hundred times have we explained that it's the positive feedback, something causes the temperatures to go up, the warming oceans release CO2 and this takes over the warming effect from the original cause".

No, it does not and the last glacial transition proofs that, provided that we accept that the variation in isotopes is a valid paleo thermometer and that the actual CO2 concentrations reflect the concentrations in the past. I explained that in this thread.

(details about the data in that same thread.)

In this isotope (temperature) versus CO2 plot during the last glacial transition between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, the century scale CO2 lag is clearly visible. But the assumed positive feedback of CO2 is proven non-existent by the lack of acceleration as the CO2 starts to rise and the abrupt temperature reversal just prior to 14,000 years ago. The continuing CO2 rise because of the lag, should have slowed down that reversal with a weak positive feedback or it should have prevented it completely with a strong positive feedback. It did not, actually it did nothing, it just followed the 'temperature' drop submissively. Hence this demonstrates that changing CO2 concentrations have no noticable effect on the 'temperature'.

Although the math isn't easy, it's pretty simple to make a basic model in excel of feedback effects. This shows roughly how the temperature response might have been with a weak positive feedback of CO2:

Notice how the temperature forcing down, halfway, is barely noticed in the output

But the assumption that the ice ages show a bipolar postive feedback effect, with stable extremes, like flip flops, require a strong positive feedback loop with a total gain >=1. That would lead to something like:

We see the accelerating of 'temp response' kicking in at around 6-7 time units compared to the basic forcing and furthermore, we see no reaction of 'temp response' whatsoever on the sudden reversal of the basic forcing function around time 24. This is about how the CO2 and isotope plot should have looked like, without reversal due to the strong positive feedback of CO2 warming up afterwards. Since it does not, it proves that CO2 did not do that warming and if it didn't do it then, there is no reason to expect that it does now.

The simple basic excel model can be downloaded here. You could play with the CO2 gain factor between 0 and 1 to see the effect of weak and strong feedback.

 

[vanesch]

Andre, what one can conclude from that plot is the following:

- grossly, CO2 levels follow temperature, with a lag of a few hundred years, in as much as the proxies used for that aren't cross-influenced themselves, and the time calibration is ok - I'm absolutely not qualified to look into that.

- it is not easy to find a dynamical model that explains one driving the other, except for that gross observation, but as you show, there doesn't seem to be any strong feedback coupling between both - we simply seem to have one variable grossly following the other one with a serious time lag, and this correlation is not there when looking at detailled small dynamics.

- it is very well possible that other factors also influenced CO2, temperature, or the calibration of the proxies.

So *if* there is a causal effect to be deduced from this, which is risky given the above qualifiers, then it is that temperature drives CO2, but not just temperature. It is also possible that both temperature and CO2 are driven by another external cause - but again not in perfect sync.

It is also possible that both of them are part of a very much more complicated dynamical system, but without knowledge of other state variables, it will then be impossible to find any dynamical black box model, and even more difficult, any physical model describing causal relationships.

 

[Bored Wombat]

But do you know their reactions to other parameters like temperature accurately enough as to be able to show that the difference is DRIVEN by the fossil-fuel consumption ?

I know that it is coming from fossil fuel combustion, and the bulk of it is remaining in the atmosphere with the second largest lump dissolving in the oceans.
And I know that if you increase the partial pressure of a soluble gas, then more of it will dissolve in the oceans.

Can't oceans or the terrestrial biosphere be "sources" in the sense of being less of a sink than they used to be just because of regulation properties ?

That's not the usual meaning of source, but the oceanic efficiency as a sink is dropping. I can't speak for the terrestrial biosphere.

Imagine that oceans "want" to have a higher level of atmospheric CO2 for one or other reason.

By what sort of mechanism?

I don't have to. YOU are making a case.

Okay, my case is that the oceans don't want anything. They'll outgass if the solubility for CO₂ decreases, and otherwise dissolve some of any atmospheric increase and release some of any atmospheric decrease. This is how water behaves.

It is not caused by temperature, but then it comes 600 years (I think? From the top of my head) AFTER the temperature increase, and is almost perfectly correlated. This isn't directly a demonstration that CO2 DROVE temperature. If anything causal here, it is temperature which drives CO2.

They are certainly both going on, and we know this not by looking at the graph, but because the physics is understood. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it's solubility decreases with increasing water temperature at least around the sort of temperatures that the oceans are.

So you are just talking about the quantitative effect. The world is different now. Land usage is different. The response might be different.

Most of the response is from the oceans. Land usage doesn't affect that.

The exact dynamics hasn't been elucidated. It is not because you've seen a different response in the past that this is a PROOF that this time the quantitatively different response (in as much as the proxies are numerically accurate) is FOR SURE not caused partly by temperature.

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

That could only be the case if you have a perfect physical dynamical model of the relationship between temperature, land usage and CO2 content.

No, I know from the fact that all the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel combustion, and that most of what is not remaining in the atmosphere is dissolving in the oceans, therefore the terrestrial biosphere is not setting the level of atmospheric CO2. It is largely set by an interaction between human activity and the oceans.

Hell, the proxy might even have a cross-correlation! Maybe the proxy for CO2 calibration is partly dependent on temperature or vice versa. How can you know ?

Sorry, what proxy are we talking about here?

Nevertheless, before the 600 year shift was known, these data were presented as PROOF THAT CO2 DROVE TEMPERATURE. It was one of those "undeniable proofs" which fell on their face.

Where is it called an "undeniable proofs"? It is certainly true that a doubling of CO₂ results in warming of over 1.5°C robustly throughout the last 420 million years. Is that what you mean by "drives" temperature?

This is again taking your conclusion as an argument. You ASSUME that it is human-driven CO2 which is now the main cause of rising of atmospheric CO2,
Well, I don't think it is really an assumption, because we know where it comes from, and we know that it's concentration is 30% above what it normally peaks at during an interglacial, so we know well enough that this level is not due to some natural mechanism.
And I think it strange that we are looking for such a mechanism.
"We're putting 11Gt of Carbon into the atmosphere every year, but where is this 7Gt of carbon that is accumulating in the atmosphere every year coming from?" It doesn't seem to be that worthwhile a question to dwell on.

But if you consider the paleoclimatic reconstructions, I think there is sufficient support for the surely obvious to convince most juries beyond all reasonable doubt.

Just fitting a dynamical black box model to paleo data, and seeing the difference with now, is no proof. It is at most suggestive.

What black box is this?

I don't mean any intentional dishonesty. I only see that those same data were once used as a "proof" that CO2 drove temperature. Another "hockeystick" if you want. And then it turned out to be the other way around.

At no point I have seen the IPCC hammering that their previous argument was ERRONEOUS and turned out to be FALSE. I'm not claiming that the finding was withheld, I'm only pointing out the difference in publicity that was given to the CO2 --> temperature correlation and then the fact that it was discovered that this was backward.

I don't mean any intentional dishonesty. I only see that those same data were once used as a "proof" that CO2 drove temperature. Another "hockeystick" if you want. And then it turned out to be the other way around.

It's not the other way around. They move simultaneously for the most part.

At no point I have seen the IPCC hammering that their previous argument was ERRONEOUS and turned out to be FALSE.

Do you have an example of this previous argument in the words of the IPCC that was erroneous?

The problem is that this is again circular: it is used as a PROOF for the greenhouse effect, and at the same time it is EXPLAINED BY that greenhouse effect.

You don't need to prove the greenhouse effect, it is a result of well understood optics. It has been proven a century or so. The world would average a chilly -15°C without it.

 

[Andre]

Andre, what one can conclude from that plot is the following:

- grossly, CO2 levels follow temperature, with a lag of a few hundred years, in as much as the proxies used for that aren't cross-influenced themselves, and the time calibration is ok - I'm absolutely not qualified to look into that.

It's okay, it's data from abundantly peer reviewed literature and the logic seems okay too as oceans are extremely inert thermally, a few centuries is nothing, but...it's their interpretation not mine.

- it is not easy to find a dynamical model that explains one driving the other, except for that gross observation, but as you show, there doesn't seem to be any strong feedback coupling between both - we simply seem to have one variable grossly following the other one with a serious time lag, and this correlation is not there when looking at detailled small dynamics.

Right, but we do know the difference in dynamic responses between positive and negative feedback loops, with as shown lazy behavior of positive feedback loops, unwilling to change heading and move further away from the equilibrium (unstable) whereas negative feedback loops shows the opposite, with a trend to resist change and return to equilibrium (stable). This effect has been explored statistically in various ways by Olavi Kärner (one of the authors of the Independant Summary of Policy Makers). He invariably finds negative feedback which gives no support to the AGW hypothesis. http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/. One might wonder why Naomi Oreskes did not find these studies.

It is also possible that both of them are part of a very much more complicated dynamical system, but without knowledge of other state variables, it will then be impossible to find any dynamical black box model, and even more difficult, any physical model describing causal relationships.

That's what I'm after the last couple of years and I bet my money on that. Unfortunately we have to sit out the AGW political ideology before we can progress again, as Richard Lindzen proposes here.

 

[Andre]

Bored Wombat, I said

I think that the scientific method is a bit comparable with the battle in court, is the defendant innocent or guilty? There can be an abundance of evidence for guilty. But only one is enough to prove innocence. There can be a motive, an opportunity, a lack of alibi, found objects, etc, etc. But if the DNA doesn't match, it's all over, innocent, period!

You can fill threads and threads with melting glaciers, sea levels, arctic sea ice, polar bears, and anything else that seems to be caused by global warming but if there is only one single piece of evidence that CO2 did not do the job, it's all over, innocent, period!

And then I demonstrated that the fingerprint did not match, hence there is evidence that CO2 did not do the job, hence, it's all over, innocent, period! So what use is it to continue talking about "motive, an opportunity, a lack of alibi, found objects, etc, etc". It's your job now to challenge the evidence that I provided.

 

[Bored Wombat]

MODTRAN gives you less than this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1358505&postcount=2

Andre calculated this, and I also did the exercise myself. You get 0.77 K per doubling of CO2.

That's right. The 3°C is the climates response to the increase in radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2, and once the new equilibrium is reached.

So even the 1.5 degree per doubling is not clear, unless you *assume* that current temperature increase is *entirely* due to human driven effects, and then after the fact you use this number to *prove* that it is human-caused.

You don't have to assume it. You can estimate it independently.
You can estimate it from paleocliamtic reconstructions, as the four papers to which I linked above.

You can estimate it from climatic observations:
An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity

You can estimate it from radiation budget data:
The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data

And, of course, you can estimate it from lots of GCMs.
http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/2004GL022241.pdf (There are a great many papers that estimate climate sensitivity from GCMs of course.)
or functionally similar tools:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/knutti/papers/knutti03cd.pdf

This is often refined by Bayesian analysis:
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/tomassini07jc1.pdf

Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings

There have been a wide range of angle of attack on this one, so it is not circular.

 

[Andre]

That's right. The 3°C is the climates response to the increase in radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2, and once the new equilibrium is reached.

Perhaps not. See this

 

[Bored Wombat]

Perhaps not. See this

You misunderstand.

The response of the whole climate system includes the effect of increased atmospheric water vapour, and decreased albedo from decreased ice cover, and a plethora of effects like that.

 

[Andre]

You misunderstand.

The response of the whole climate system includes the effect of increased atmospheric water vapour, and decreased albedo from decreased ice cover, and a plethora of effects like that.

No I not misunderstand. I know the tune, if you do the MODTRAN run with constant relative humidity then you get in the range of 1.2 - 1.4 degrees per doubling. However this creates energy since it disdains the energy required (2500 joule per gram) to evaporate the water required to keep the relative humidity constant in the first place. It can be calculated that the additional energy from doubling CO2 is insufficient to sustain that evaporation, meanwhile that energy required for evaporation is not available for heating. But this discussion is futile, it is still about motive and lack of alibi, whilst the innocence of CO2 has been proven.

 

[vanesch]

I know that it is coming from fossil fuel combustion, and the bulk of it is remaining in the atmosphere with the second largest lump dissolving in the oceans.
And I know that if you increase the partial pressure of a soluble gas, then more of it will dissolve in the oceans.

I also know that if you increase the temperature of the water, more CO2 will be released to the atmosphere. Currents can change. The relationship with the deep ocean can change. Plankton formation can change. Land coverage can change. Also, if you change the concentration in CO2 in the atmosphere, plankton can change, vegetation can change, chemistry can change.

If atmospheric CO2 is part of the global equivalent of a "buffer mixture" then there is a "set value" for its concentration, and any variation will be compensated by shifting reaction equilibria. If the set value of the mixture is changed, then the equilibria will shift in such a way as to vary towards the new set value, no matter whether or not there is a different source.

If one wants to demonstrate that a source is responsible for a level shift, then one has to demonstrate that all other sources and sinks in the cycle are not going to act as regulators, like a buffer mixture is in a simple chemistry experiment.

This is what I haven't seen in the arguments presented that are supposed to be a proof of the human origin of CO2 LEVEL in the atmosphere. It isn't sufficient to show that there is a source, you also have to demonstrate that all other systems coupled to it won't act as a regulator, and that it is not the regulator that has a different setting value.

That's not the usual meaning of source, but the oceanic efficiency as a sink is dropping. I can't speak for the terrestrial biosphere.

By what sort of mechanism?

Well, imagine the following. This is just a gedanken experiment. Imagine that there is a kind of plankton that grows strongly above a certain CO2 concentration, then dies off and drops to the ocean bottom. If that's the case, you can produce all the CO2 in the world, it will never get much higher than this threshold value, because beyond it, the plankton will grow exponentially and absorb all the excess CO2. But now, imagine for instance a virus that kills that plankton. Imagine that there is a second species of plankton, that acts the same, but at a higher threshold in CO2. Now that the low-threshold plankton is dead due to a pandemy, it is the second threshold that will be "set". During a certain period, the "set level" of CO2 will rise dramatically from the first to the second level. Then it will stabilize. It has nothing to do with sources and sinks. It is the regulated value by the big regulator which is plankton in this case which determines the CO2 level in the atmosphere, and you can pump as much extra CO2 in there, it won't change a thing.

As I said, that's just a gedanken experiment. But it illustrates what I mean with regulatory mechanisms which determine a certain concentration.

If you want to demonstrate that a simple in - out = result is effectively setting the level, then you have to demonstrate that there are no serious feedback mechanisms which tend to pull or push the result, but that it is just a passive balance of in - out.

So you need to know exactly the responses of all agents that could influence the in or out part as a function of the actual level in order to determine any feedback dynamics.

I haven't seen such a detailed analysis in the "proof of human caused CO2 level". Personally, I also think that it is human caused. But I wouldn't dare to make that a hard statement as many people do until all this was worked out. Fermat's last theorem was also believed to be correct, but it still took 400 years to prove it.

Okay, my case is that the oceans don't want anything. They'll outgass if the solubility for CO₂ decreases, and otherwise dissolve some of any atmospheric increase and release some of any atmospheric decrease. This is how water behaves.

Yes, a pot of stationary water without anything. An ocean with currents, life in it, gradients of different kinds is totally different. You first have to understand exactly how it responds to changing CO2 levels, to changing temperature, to changing other parameters. The same (even harder) for land.

They are certainly both going on, and we know this not by looking at the graph, but because the physics is understood. CO2 is a greenhouse gas,

Physically, CO2 is a *weak* greenhouse gas in a stationary atmosphere (cfr MODTRAN), and it is even not clear how it behaves in a convective atmosphere or how it acts upon the much more important greenhouse gas which is water vapor, and which is entirely set by feedback mechanisms.

and it's solubility decreases with increasing water temperature at least around the sort of temperatures that the oceans are.

yes, again, in a simple pot of water. How about real oceans, and their life in it ?

No, I know from the fact that all the CO2 is coming from fossil fuel combustion, and that most of what is not remaining in the atmosphere is dissolving in the oceans, therefore the terrestrial biosphere is not setting the level of atmospheric CO2. It is largely set by an interaction between human activity and the oceans.

Isn't this circular, again ? You START with your assumption that the only source is fossil fuel combustion which is rising atmospheric concentration, then you say that oceans are only absorbing part of it (because the concentrations are rising) and then you conclude that hence the supplement is what oceans cannot absorb is what causes the rise, hence this is the cullprit.
Maybe. Or maybe if there wouldn't have been fossil fuel combustion, the oceans would have outgassed more (as they are heating up, for instance ?), and that would have made the CO2 levels also rise ...

Sorry, what proxy are we talking about here?

The O18 temperature proxy and the CO2 concentrations in the ice cores.

Where is it called an "undeniable proofs"? It is certainly true that a doubling of CO₂ results in warming of over 1.5°C robustly throughout the last 420 million years. Is that what you mean by "drives" temperature?

Why don't you say that rising 1.5 degrees rising doubles CO2 concentration ?

Well, I don't think it is really an assumption, because we know where it comes from, and we know that it's concentration is 30% above what it normally peaks at during an interglacial, so we know well enough that this level is not due to some natural mechanism.

Uh. That's a weak argument. Who tells you that the dynamics is not changing (say, biological evolution, different land usage, changing ocean currents, solar activity, what ever...) ?

So now the argument "the CO2 levels are human-made" comes from "we didn't have those levels in the past" ??

I agree that all this is suggestive, but "I know that it is so" needs some more solid proof, don't you ?

In fact, it is easy to establish if atmospheric CO2 levels are human-caused or not. It is sufficient that humanity will decrease its fossil-fuel output, and this will happen anyway, because we will eventually (in one or two centuries) run out of them or don't need them anymore. When human fossil fuel combustion will stop, it will be sufficient to see whether atmospheric levels will decrease again with the same amount. Then (50 - 200 years from now) this point will be settled. So there is no scientific suspense: we will find out.

And I think it strange that we are looking for such a mechanism.
"We're putting 11Gt of Carbon into the atmosphere every year, but where is this 7Gt of carbon that is accumulating in the atmosphere every year coming from?" It doesn't seem to be that worthwhile a question to dwell on.

Yes, exactly like the guy on the shore who sees the tide rise, and thinks it is due to that other guy pooring water in the ocean... Of course, if it is a bath tub, he is right.

It is the very fact that you don't find that worthwhile a question to dwell on which worries me !
That's exactly what Feynman's remark was about. You're not trying to prove yourself wrong.

But if you consider the paleoclimatic reconstructions, I think there is sufficient support for the surely obvious to convince most juries beyond all reasonable doubt.

Depends on the standards of the jury. Knowing something scientifically means that there is no room for doubt.

If you want to persuade me that there is a reasonable chance that this atmospheric CO2 might have something to do with human activities, then there's no problem. It sounds reasonable. If however, you say that you "know" that this is so and that should be the end of the discussion, then I want scientific proof, and the LOGIC of what is presented as such proof is flawed, because it doesn't lead to an impossibility of it being otherwise.

It's not the other way around. They move simultaneously for the most part.

Simultaneously with 600 years lag between the cause and the effect...

A correlation between A and B means: A causes B or B causes A or there is a common cause C which causes A and B.

A causes B was the first obvious option, until it became clear that A came later in time than B. So now it is B causes A causes B (because we really NEED A causes B). And why not C ? And why not B causes A ?

Because CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas. Why ? Physically it is a week greenhouse gas. No, it is a strong one with the feedback! Look at the paleodata where A causes B !

Do you have an example of this previous argument in the words of the IPCC that was erroneous?

I've been looking all afternoon, and I don't find it. :shy: Nevertheless, I was convinced that at a certain point it was stated that the correlation between the temperature and the CO2 was supposed to indicate that the CO2 clearly drove the temperature (before the 600 year lag was discovered). Now, maybe this was not the IPCC. I thought that it was, but I cannot find it, so I might be wrong. I DID see however the Vostok icecore data being used as an argument that CO2 drives temperature *somewhere*.

You don't need to prove the greenhouse effect, it is a result of well understood optics. It has been proven a century or so. The world would average a chilly -15°C without it.

The well-understood optics gives you 0.77 degrees per CO2 doubling.

 

[vanesch]

That's right. The 3°C is the climates response to the increase in radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2, and once the new equilibrium is reached.

You don't have to assume it. You can estimate it independently.
You can estimate it from paleocliamtic reconstructions, as the four papers to which I linked above.

You can estimate it from climatic observations:
An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity

You can estimate it from radiation budget data:
The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data

And, of course, you can estimate it from lots of GCMs.
http://www.climateprediction.net/science/pubs/2004GL022241.pdf (There are a great many papers that estimate climate sensitivity from GCMs of course.)
or functionally similar tools:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/knutti/papers/knutti03cd.pdf

This is often refined by Bayesian analysis:
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/tomassini07jc1.pdf

Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings

There have been a wide range of angle of attack on this one, so it is not circular.

Do these papers analyse any cause-effect relationship, or do they estimate what is the correlation coefficient between the CO2 level and temperature rise, ASSUMING that it is the CO2 that is the cause, and the temperature the effect ?

In other words, in what way do they prove a causal relationship, and in what way are they estimating a correlation coefficient ?

 

[Bored Wombat]

And then I demonstrated that the fingerprint did not match, hence there is evidence that CO2 did not do the job, hence, it's all over, innocent, period! So what use is it to continue talking about "motive, an opportunity, a lack of alibi, found objects, etc, etc". It's your job now to challenge the evidence that I provided.

You are seriously claiming that the greenhouse effect isn't true because your remarkably trivial spreadsheets only look a little like like the remarkably complicated climate's response to forcing?

Because if that's what you're claiming, then I don't think that we need to go into it.

I think that CO2 affects the temperature because it blocks Earth heat more than it blocks sun heat. Therefore it does make it warmer. How much? I've cited about 10 papers in this thread, but there have been between 60 and 70 over the years that make an estimate. The answer is about 3°C per doubling. And that's been true throughout geological history too.

 

[Andre]

You are seriously claiming that the greenhouse effect isn't true because your remarkably trivial spreadsheets only look a little like like the remarkably complicated climate's response to forcing?

Because if that's what you're claiming, then I don't think that we need to go into it.

I think that CO2 affects the temperature because it blocks Earth heat more than it blocks sun heat. Therefore it does make it warmer. How much? I've cited about 10 papers in this thread, but there have been between 60 and 70 over the years that make an estimate. The answer is about 3°C per doubling. And that's been true throughout geological history too.

Better go over this thread a bit more carefully since you completely missed the point again.

 

[Bored Wombat]

Do these papers analyse any cause-effect relationship, or do they estimate what is the correlation coefficient between the CO2 level and temperature rise, ASSUMING that it is the CO2 that is the cause, and the temperature the effect ?

The majority of the work (but not the majority of these papers) is from GCMs, which of course analyse the cause effect relationship by modelling it.

The statistical and neural net papers look for constraints on the parameter climate sensitivity. I guess they could find a zero or negative one if there is not a causal relationship.

Needless to say, they don't.

and in what way are they estimating a correlation coefficient

They don't estimate a correlation coefficient.

 

[vanesch]

The majority of the work (but not the majority of these papers) is from GCMs, which of course analyse the cause effect relationship by modelling it.

The statistical and neural net papers look for constraints on the parameter climate sensitivity. I guess they could find a zero or negative one if there is not a causal relationship.

Needless to say, they don't.They don't estimate a correlation coefficient.

I don't know if you see the difficulty to distinguish between both. In a dynamically coupled system, in fact, what is "cause" and what is "effect" is sometimes extremely difficult ; it can be hard to determine causal relationships without having experimental access and be able to change the cause at random and see if the effect is correlated. I have the impression, when I read those abstracts, that people take it for granted that the drive is the CO2, and then try to find what is the dynamical system that gives temperature. I don't see them try the opposite, for instance. I don't see them try to establish by how much CO2 could rise given a temperature change.

I don't see them take as a starting point "let us assume that CO2 doesn't affect temperature (and, say, temperature is driven by other factors, such as albedo change, ocean current change,...), and see where that leads us". No, they take as a starting point that there is a "radiative forcing", that its effect is temperature change, and then go on estimating how much it is, *starting from that hypothesis* that the main drive is radiative forcing. Then they find a value that can explain data. Fine, but that didn't prove the starting hypothesis.

Let me tell you again why all these things bother me. As I said, I'm a proponent of nuclear power, and it is of course an attractive discourse to say that we need nuclear power for reasons of AGW. However, if you make that link too strong, and AGW turns out not to be true, then this will backfire, and I think there are also *other* reasons than AGW to promote nuclear power. So before I want to link the advantages of nuclear power to AGW, I want to know whether the case for AGW is strong enough so that *no possibility exists that it will turn out, 20 years or 30 years from now, that it turns out not to be there*. Because, I don't know if the AGW crowd realizes this, we WILL eventually find out. It is not like a futile debate about, say, the interpretation of quantum theory or something, or string theory or whatever, where there will be always a way to wiggle out, or where there won't be any way to know for sure. No, with AGW, there is no *scientific suspense*: we will find out. We will have serious indications in 20 or 30 years and we will know for sure in 50 - 200 years. So before wanting to link the fate of nuclear power to the fate of AGW, I wanted to find out how strong the AGW case is, so I started playing the devil's advocate. I said: I'm going to read the AGW material (mainly from the IPCC) and I'm going to try to find loopholes in it. Given that I'm not a climate scientist (but on the other hand, I'm a physicist and I think I know enough about stuff such as radiation transport and so on to know the basics), I shouldn't be able to find ANY LOOPHOLE in the argument.

And that's where my disappointment came from: there's no logical case at all ! It is just a pile of suggestive evidence, and a lot of logical errors ! Suggestive evidence, to me, is observations which are more or less in agreement with what one would expect if one willingly takes on as hypothesis the statement to be proved. Logical proof to me is a set of contradictions one finds when one takes on most if not all thinkable hypotheses that contradict the to be proven hypothesis: it is falsifying the reasonable alternatives.

Now, a bad sign to me was that arguments used as "smoking gun" only 10 - 15 years ago as proof for AGW had to be reviewed in such a way that, to me (playing the devil's advocate), undid it of about all the smoke they displayed back then. That doesn't mean that they aren't still suggestive, but they've LOST their convincing power they had back then.

- You may read into the "hockey stick" plots whatever you want, you cannot deny that the display of the 2001 hockey stick is far far more convincing than the different 2007 hockey sticks without the current instrumental data glued on them.

- The 600 year lag between temperature rise and CO2 rise spoils a bit the evident "cause-effect" relationship that CO2 causes a temperature rise

Also, the arguments put forward to prove the two main theses of AGW, namely that the atmospheric CO2 content is fossil-fuel driven and that CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas seem to fail. I didn't say that this isn't true, I'm saying that the *arguments put forward* don't conclusively lead to the conclusion they want to demonstrate (like in mathematics, where there's a hole in the proof).

The 3 points: O2 decrease correlated with CO2 increase, isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2, and correlation between CO2 increase and fossil fuel exhaust, while of course suggestive, do not lead to the LOGICAL conclusion that the CO2 LEVEL is determined by the fossil fuel exhaust, given that the atmosphere is coupled to large carbon reservoirs (ocean, land mass) which have a dynamical relation with temperature, and with the CO2 level.
I jumped up when I read those arguments in the IPCC report (the physical basis, 4AR), because this was the first thing that came to my mind. I didn't see that point addressed at all.
Again, these 3 points are suggestive evidence. If you take as a starting point, the thing you want to prove namely that "atmospheric CO2 is rising because of fossil fuel combustion"(because you are somehow a priori convinced that this is true), then of course the 3 arguments are "in resonance" with what you think already: "Yeah, given that we are already sure that atmospheric CO2 is human driven, it's no wonder that CO2 increases with fossil fuel combustion, and that consumes oxygen, and then see, it was the same CO2 that we find in the atmosphere as the one that was consumed". That's suggestive evidence indeed. It is compatible with the suspected cause.
But it doesn't PROVE it. And to show you that it doesn't prove it, I simply have to find a counter example where the same LOGIC is used (show you that the observed increase of A is correlated with the output of source B, show you that the isotopic composition of A corresponds to that of source B, show you that some other quantity diminishes with B) and nevertheless the inferred causal relationship is NOT true in this case. That was the heavy water and the shore.

Again, this doesn't say anything about what I think about where the CO2 comes from. I also think it is sensible to think it comes from fossil fuel combustion. But it is not because I also think that Fermat's last theorem is true, that I think that your proof of it is correct!

This is so an elementary logical error that I found it extremely worrisome that it wasn't obviously addressed, and what I found even more so, was Bored Wombat's reaction which I'm afraid illustrates this: yeah, ok, with your nitpicking you found maybe a hypothetical logical error, but then the proof wasn't needed in the first place because we knew already of course that it was fossil fuel output that set the CO2 level. I don't even see why we should bother...


This illustrates the cavalier attitude towards scientific inquiry, and not Bored Wombat's, but the whole AGW crowd I am afraid.

If this is really true, then you don't present evidence as logical proof with a logical flaw in it. You simply say that you have to take it as an article of faith that CO2 levels are "of course" fossil fuel driven, and that if you take on that article of faith, then there is circumstantial evidence that comforts that idea.

The next point is: "CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas". I haven't seen any proof of that either, that doesn't work in the same circumstantial way. Most arguments presented follow the same kind of argument: "take it as an article of faith that CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas", and then, starting from that hypothesis, we can explain this and that. And if one asks then if there's ANOTHER way of explaining this or that, then the answer is: not needed, we KNOW that CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas. Ultimately, the argument is: we know the OPTICS OF CO2, it tells us it is a greenhouse gas. Yes, but the optics tells you it is a WEAK greenhouse gas.

In the papers you cite, I have the impression that one doesn't try to PROVE that it is the CO2 that was the cause and one doesn't try to prove that it is the CO2 that is working as a greenhouse gas. It is simply taken as a hypothesis (especially all the statistical estimators! I've done neural network simulation also, in a totally different context as black box models for microwave electronic components when I was working with HP: I can tell you that no neural network is ever taken seriously as a cause-effect dynamical model: it is always a black box).

So when digging into all this, I was appalled at the lack of criticism towards the basic hypotheses on which the whole AGW theory is built. It is as if one has to take them as articles of faith, and then we get a huge pile of suggestive evidence which "makes sense - more or less" when one has taken them already as truth. This HAS some value of course. But it is far from establishing the original hypotheses.

Also, what is worrisome, even more so, is the lack of critical inquiry in those pieces of evidence that don't seem to fit perfectly into the puzzle.

So although there is of course suggestive evidence (if you read it with the "right" mindset), I am far from convinced that one has an "air-tight case". I wouldn't want to convict anyone on such shaky evidence alone, and I'm amazed that this could even be there. After looking into all this, I'm less inclined to promote, say, nuclear power on such a shaky basis, because I take the possibility very very real that all this may turn out simply not to be true, and that it will seriously backfire if ever that's the case.

On the other hand, I don't find much evidence either that AGW isn't true, and in as much that it might be catastrophic, even if it has a 30% chance of being there, one should consider fighting it (the expected damage is then one third of the estimated AGW damage, which is still very consequential). After all, there IS a lot of suggestive evidence. There is a lot of data that doesn't contradict the hypothesis, and that's of course also a way to "prove" things - on the condition of being honest ! In that case, one has to *try to find - even a single case - evidence which might *contradict* the working hypothesis. In as much as one *really tries* to falsify one's working hypothesis, after sufficient time, and if EACH TIME the falsification didn't work, this also builds confidence in the working hypothesis. But there's a danger here. There is the danger that one selects only those cases where the falsification doesn't work, and *one might be inclined to neglect those cases where falsification might work*. That's what a lawyer does, on purpose. And that's the trap Feynman warned against.

And the reaction I see to small indications that there might be some details that "don't fit" scare me. The point Andre brought up should worry climate scientists. What Andre did was taking the cavalier "explanation and proof" that the lagging CO2 in the paleodata act as a positive feedback mechanism, literally. He set up a very simple model with a simple positive feedback - as one does in system dynamics 101 - and looked at the result. But he didn't need to do that: simple positive feedback is known to lead to multistability. So if the explanation was indeed so simple and "evident" as given by the AGW crowd to make the lagging CO2 nevertheless "causal", then this multistability should explain most of the data. And in fact, it does explain part of the data, but it is in contradiction with certain passages such as Andre indicates. And in dynamics, the devil is in the details, and Andre points out correctly that you cannot have that kind of behaviour in a multistable system with positive feedback. Of course his model is way too simple. That's not the point. But if the explanation were so easy (evident proof of the CO2 as causal agent), then the model would be easy to. So this is more complicated.
The comment of "yes, but in reality it is more complicated" is of course acceptable, ON THE CONDITION THAT IT IS UNDERSTOOD.

So my question is: has there been a dynamical model using exactly the proposed causal relationships, which PREDICTS CORRECTLY exactly the passage Andre illustrated ? Has one identified in that passage exactly what was then the cause of the LOWERING of the temperature when CO2 was rising slowly ? Because this is going to be difficult in a positive-feedback model, so this is exactly the kind of relevant detail which needs to be adressed. THIS is the kind of falsification exercise which is worthwhile: we seem to have a piece of data which CONTRADICTS at first sight the working hypothesis, this is an ideal case to test falsification on. Has this been done ?

 

[vanesch]

Another point which I don't find addressed in the argument that CO2 is a *strong* greenhouse gas (that is supposed to explain more than 33 K of greenhouse effect), is the difference between its effect on the Earth and on Mars.

Mars has about 7 mbar of partial (and in fact total) pressure of CO2, while the Earth has less of it (about 0.4 mbar, no ?). So the *purely optical greenhouse effect* should be much stronger on Mars than on the earth. Actually, there are two main differences: the total pressure of the atmosphere is totally different, and as such, we can expect maybe a different Doppler broadening. Also, the temperatures are lower on Mars, so the thermal spectrum is shifted, and hence the relative intensities will be different. But not much so. The greenhouse effect on Mars is of the order of 6 K for about 15 times more CO2 than on earth. A 5 times smaller effect for a 15 times higher concentration is two orders of magnitude difference.

Of course, on Mars there are no feedback effects, but there is also no water vapor.

I'm not claiming anything here. I'm not saying that the small greenhouse effect for the large quantity falsifies as such the claim of a large greenhouse effect on earth. But it is an evident test case and I find it extremely strange that this point isn't addressed. The data are much clearer than paleodata: there are two orders of magnitude to be explained away. It is funny that this is not even found worthy of being addressed.

BTW, this article http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html is interesting, because it points to albedo changes explaining most of the temperature variations on Mars. The funny thing is that this effect was used to counter a AGW sceptics comment that recently, Mars was also warming, which they pointed then to a common solar irradiance effect.
True, but if albedo variations have such an important effect on global temperature on Mars, has this been studied on Earth ?

 

[Andre]

The greenhouse effect on Mars is of the order of 6 K for about 15 times more CO2 than on earth.

According to this fact sheet both the average temperature and the blackbody temperature are 210K.

On the other hand there is Venus, which has a "greenhouse" effect of 506 degrees suggesting some 20 degrees order of magnitude per doubling CO2. But there is one big difference with Earth, there is not a lot of http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JE001501.shtml in the atmosphere of Venus, which together with the water cycle regulates the temperature on Earth working as an Air conditioner.

 

[Bored Wombat]

Another point which I don't find addressed in the argument that CO2 is a *strong* greenhouse gas (that is supposed to explain more than 33 K of greenhouse effect), is the difference between its effect on the Earth and on Mars.

I don't think that that can be right. 33K is the entire greenhouse effect.

Although CO2 is responsible for most of the enhanced greenhouse effect, being that anthropogenic part of it, it is only responsible for 9% or 26% of the total greenhouse effect, depending on whether or not you include overlap with other greenhouse gasses.

So the most I think you could reasonably claim is about 9K. 3K would also be reasonable, if it is defined as the amount less of the warming that there would be if CO₂ were removed entirely. Assuming radiative forcing translates linearly into temperature ... Which might be close for small changes in radiative forcing. (A straight line approximates the T⁴ curve for small sections of it.)

Who is claiming 33K?

Of course, on Mars there are no feedback effects, but there is also no water vapor.

There's wind. Which is stronger overall if there's more radiative forcing. That's a feedback because it stirs up dust with affects the Albedo.

BTW, this article http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html is interesting, because it points to albedo changes explaining most of the temperature variations on Mars. The funny thing is that this effect was used to counter a AGW sceptics comment that recently, Mars was also warming, which they pointed then to a common solar irradiance effect.
True, but if albedo variations have such an important effect on global temperature on Mars, has this been studied on Earth ?

Of course. Albedo is an important aspect of climate modelling.

I recall the original paper talked about albedo driving the climate change on Mars, and the denilaists ignoring that while flooding the chatshows and opinion pieces with the view that it was caused by variation in solar irradiance. Despite the lack of positive trend in solar irradiance over the past 30 years.

 

[vanesch]

I don't think that that can be right. 33K is the entire greenhouse effect.

Yes, it is the difference between the thermal equilibrium temperature of the grey body at the actual solar irradiance and the actual temperature.

Although CO2 is responsible for most of the enhanced greenhouse effect, being that anthropogenic part of it, it is only responsible for 9% or 26% of the total greenhouse effect, depending on whether or not you include overlap with other greenhouse gasses.

So the most I think you could reasonably claim is about 9K.
3K would also be reasonable, if it is defined as the amount less of the warming that there would be if CO₂ were removed entirely. Assuming radiative forcing translates linearly into temperature ... Which might be close for small changes in radiative forcing. (A straight line approximates the T⁴ curve for small sections of it.)

Who is claiming 33K?

And who said that the world would be a chilly snowball of about -15 C without (what I presume the CO2 greenhouse effect - as it was used to show that CO2 was a strong greenhouse gas) ?

You don't need to prove the greenhouse effect, it is a result of well understood optics. It has been proven a century or so. The world would average a chilly -15°C without it.

The whole discussion turns around *how much* an increase in CO2 affects the greenhouse effect, in other words, is CO2 a strong or a weak greenhouse gas. The bare bone optics tells us it is 0.77 K for a doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, which means it is rather weak. In order to change that into 1.5 - 6 K, one needs to show me where the trick is. I don't say that this is impossible because there can be feedback effects. Those can be positive, negative, or irrelevant. But I would like to see - and with all the "scientific certainty claims" there MUST be - an almost airtight logical reasoning that proves us that a doubling of CO2 brings us within a 1.5 - 6 K range, *so that it could eventually be recognized as an important source of heating*, and I haven't seen that. What I have seen are a lot of studies that *take it for granted that the observed heating is due to CO2* and then go on estimating what must be the feedback effect SO THAT the heating can be explained by the CO2 change. But that's of course no proof that the CO2 was the principal cause in the first place. Once they've estimated how much CO2 must heat, in order to explain the heating, then, low and behold, the CO2 explains exactly the amount of heating! Now, because that needed heating is much larger than the optics tells us, that is then seen as a *proof* that there must be positive feedback effects, which have to explain why CO2 is heating more than it is purely physically supposed to do. And if one then asks how does one know that the heating didn't have another cause, then the answer is, because CO2 can explain it, with the positive feedback effects! When I make that objection, I get the answer that it is "known". But where does the proof that CO2 is the *source* of the heating come from, that doesn't already ASSUME that it is the source ?

In this respect, Mars is an interesting "reality check" on the bare bones effect of CO2: with 15 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, its "optical" pure-CO2 greenhouse effect is tiny. The main difference is that the "feedback effects" are switched off, or are different. Don't forget that this is nevertheless the "drive" of the current AGW theory. What we see on Mars is that the CO2 doesn't play a role of significance in any changes of temperature: albedo is then a strong forcing agent.

And then the question is: imagine that those feedback effects really exist. That means, imagine that a tiny drive (such as the all-optical CO2 drive, but also a change in ocean currents, or a small change in albedo - think use of coal and black particles which is correlated of course with CO2 exhaust - or whatever) can and will indeed be amplified to large proportions (and hence, in the linear domain, that small temperature decreases can also be amplified into large coolings). That would then mean 2 things: 1) big instabilities and 2) *any* small initial temperature forcing would be amplified.

I may of course have it all backwards, and maybe you can reassure me with a logical proof that CO2 IS a strong greenhouse gas, and that I can hope that AGW is here to stay (indeed, my greatest fear is that it might not be there as strongly as one claims). So what's the logical argument that leads us to conclude, without hesitation, that CO2 cannot be anything else but a strong greenhouse gas ?

Again, don't understand me wrong. I'm more kind of attacking the logic of the whole thing than discussing whether or not AGW is there. It's more like the mathematician who is verifying the proof of a theorem and finds logical leaps that don't seem to be sound, than discussing of whether the theorem is true. It's more about the scientific method than any actual climate science.

 

[Andre]

I would not bet my money on the 33 degrees (actually 34.5 degrees) difference between average surface temperature and black/gray body temperature being greenhouse effect, because it's convection effect instead (Chilingar et al 2008). The difference would probably be even more if it weren't for greenhouse gasses.

Recheck these vertical temperature profiles registered at various times of the day, giving that away:

http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/texaqs/austin_poster/Image11.gif

Caption:

The figure to the right uses PNNL radiosonde data to show the diurnal variation of temperature profiles for August 31, 2000, at La Marque. The UTC launch times were 0501 (pink), 0758 (red), 1106 (light blue), 1401 (green), 1700 (white), 2000 (yellow) and 2300 (grey). It is clear that ground-level nighttime inversion vanishes between 1401 and 1700 UTC, and reappears after 2300 UTC. ...

Look how little daily cycle effect there is in the atmosphere above 2000 feet. Let's see why.

The air gets heated at day time due to a combination of

1: warm air convection from the surface to higher levels,
2: latent heat exchange, evaporating at the surface takes heat away and condensing at higher levels releases the heat again, while forming clouds
3: greenhouse effect

As we can see in the diagram at night time the higher layers cool again due to:

3: greenhouse effect, radiating energy out to space

...since there is no heat exchange mechanism with the surface, and there is no such thing as downward convection. It's one way only, up.

Now, suppose that there were no greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, then there would NOT be cooling at night in the higher levels, actually perhaps also in the lower levels as we may assume that a part of the cooling there, is due to more effective back radiation to Earth and Earth radiating it out this on other IR frequencies in better emission windows. That would also not go when there were no greenhouse gasses, and what is left then, would only be conduction of the lowest few meters perhaps, which is highly ineffective

So the next day, with the atmosphere still warm, the temperatures could be driven even higher and in the end the higher level lapse rate would theoretically equal that of the warmest day all the time, year around. If it wasn't for the cooling out radiating effect of greenhouse gasses the Earth would likely really be hot.

Also, if we look at all the heat exchange processes at day and night, we see that the greenhouse effects at day and night oppose each other, they may not cancel each other out but the question can be asked if greenhouse effect heats or cools

There are also non-diurnal processes causing warming of the atmosphere like heat advection. This happens for instance when cold and warm air masses collide, then the warmer air is forced over the colder air due to the density difference hence also transporting energy from the Earth surface into the atmosphere and heating it above gray body temperature

 

[vanesch]

Now, suppose that there were no greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, then there would NOT be cooling at night in the higher levels, actually perhaps also in the lower levels as we may assume that a part of the cooling there, is due to more effective back radiation to Earth and Earth radiating it out this on other IR frequencies in better emission windows. That would also not go when there were no greenhouse gasses, and what is left then would only be conduction of the lowest few meters perhaps, which is highly ineffective

So the next day, with the atmosphere still warm, the temperatures could be driven even higher and in the end the higher level lapse rate would theoretically equal that of the warmest day all the time, year around. If it wasn't for the cooling out radiating effect of greenhouse gasses the Earth would likely really be hot.

I don't see how this can work. If there are strictly no greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, then the atmosphere can almost not radiate out any of its internal thermal energy (almost, because nothing is totally decoupled from the EM field). That means that the radiative balance earth-surface / outer space / sun is as if there were no atmosphere. The Earth surface would essentially act as a grey body radiator, directly into space, and receive visible light directly from the sun. The atmosphere would be entirely transparant.

However, as you point out, what still works is heating of the lower air by conduction, and of course convection will also play a role, until the upper layers get at the hottest possible temperatures of the Earth surface, at which point, convection will stop, because we get a well-ordered atmosphere, the higher you go, the hotter it gets. At that point the convection heat pump stops, and we would just get the lower layers which follow more or less the surface temperature, and remain colder and hence heavier than the top layers: they would simply add some effective thermal capacity to the Earth surface.

And the surface would settle at its black (or grey) body temperature because the only heat loss mechanism would now be radiation, straight through the atmosphere.

Of course, in as much as the atmosphere is not totally decoupled, and does radiate a bit of thermal energy away, one should find out whether the radiated BB radiation from the atmosphere (partly in space, and partly back to earth) does anything. But I don't see how convection could HEAT the Earth surface.

 

[Andre]

And the surface would settle at its black (or grey) body temperature because the only heat loss mechanism would now be radiation, straight through the atmosphere.

Really? but isn't this ignoring the daily effects. After all, at the equator at noon, each square meter is getting the full 1367 watt, not the average, that's good for the full 360K (albedo 0.3) and that would be the temperature base (minus lapse rate) of the local atmosphere above the transient layer in steady state? That is to say when there is no more convection after completing the heating up of the atmosphere.

So after dawn the surface would heat up quickly because in the steady state there is no more convection to take the heat away, but how fast would the surface cool at night with the hot air above? Wouldn't there be asymmetrical heating and cooling, having a different average?

And what would be the average temperature now at 1.80 meters? or whatever the height of the official meteorologic observation stations may be. After all we are talking about the measured 'surface temperatures' as the air temperature at such and such height and not the actual temperature of the ground surface in the 33 degrees difference now.

 

[vanesch]

So after dawn the surface would heat up quickly because in the steady state there is no more convection to take the heat away,

But there would still be an effective thermal capacity, smoothing out temperature variations.

but how fast would the surface cool at night with the hot air above? Wouldn't there be asymmetrical heating and cooling, having a different average?

The hot air not having any greenhouse gasses (and hence not radiating any IR), it wouldn't affect (much, there would be a little bit of radiation of course, and there would be a bit of conduction even) the surface temperature. Let us not forget that we are in an idealized gedanken experiment in which there is almost no greenhouse gas, and hence almost no thermal radiation emitted from the gas layers.

And what would be the average temperature now at 1.80 meters? or whatever the height of the official meteorologic observation stations may be. After all we are talking about the measured 'surface temperatures' as the air temperature at such and such height and not the actual temperature of the ground surface in the 33 degrees difference now.

Well, as thermal conduction is not 0 (there is still thermal conduction in an ideal gas), there would be a thermal gradient which goes from the ground temperature to the "maximum temperature" at a certain height, and this gradient would be constrained by the threshold for setting off convection. So this fixes a certain height over which the temperature will vary (with some lag and everything) from the surface temperature to the "hot air" temperature. And 1.8 m will see a bit of that influence (or a lot, if that distance is only 5 meters - no idea).In fact, the situation is a little bit similar (but then downward, not upward) with the ocean, and the cold lower layers in the deep ocean.

 

[Andre]

And 1.8 m will see a bit of that influence (or a lot, if that distance is only 5 meters - no idea).

In http://www.bom.gov.au/info/ftweather/page_16.shtml about 7 degrees:

But that's including the radiative cooling of the lowermost atmosphere to the Earth surface, which is absent in the null hypothesis

Anyway, you should write all that critique to Chilligar et al 2008 in the cooling thread.