NOAA busted re-writing temperature History.

[Doc Socks Junior]

On 6/15/2018 at 4:27 PM, bmk1245 said:

So, delve in it, I'm sure Doug will be pleased with your help. No sarcasm here. If you can, help him.

It does sound fun!

On 6/17/2018 at 2:26 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Doesn't help that the university takes half for "overhead" charges.

Yeah, they talk about "keeping the lights on". I suppose all the middle management salaries have to come from somewhere.

[Doug1029]

On 6/17/2018 at 11:25 AM, lost_shaman said:

I'm the OP of the thread on it here as you well know Doug! Are you trying to libel me here too? Try to practice intellectual honesty sometime soon before I really lose respect for you and go after your nonsense in a much more direct way. Last chance. 

That's quite a debating technique you have:  if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, use vague threats.  The last time I had that tactic used on me, I was in the sixth grade.  What grade did you say you were in?  At least be specific.  Exactly what is it you're threatening me with?

You know, you could always just block me.  That would solve the problem for you.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

On 6/17/2018 at 12:12 PM, Doug1o29 said:

"...over-estimated absorption on purpose!"  Guess that says it.

Yes that does say it! If you read the abstract he states the goal was to simplify the Math in order to determine CO2s maximum contribution to heating the atmosphere at different concentrations. The simple way to do this is to over estimate this heating in the equations as opposed to attempting to model the exact contribution which complex algorithms and super computers attempt to do. 

I'm not a Physicist either, but what Rhienhardt shows with his equations is that CO2s major contribution to atmospheric heating comes from excited CO2 molecules which have absorbed an IR photon colliding with other atmospheric molecular species as opposed to re-emission of an IR photon to return to its non-excited state in the troposphere. This is where Rhienhardt is able to show that the ICPP models are overestimating atmospheric heating by CO2 simply because they assume CO2 molecules are re-emitting most of the IR photons they absorb in all directions leading to increased IR failing to escape the atmosphere and causing increased IR radiation heating the Earth's surface.  

In layman's terms what he is showing is that a small concentration of CO2 (~150 ppmv my estimate) does almost all of the heating in the lower atmosphere that CO2 causes, and that if we double or quadruple this CO2 concentration the heating CO2 causes falls off logarithmically. That basically means you just end up with more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that are not in an excited state and are not absorbing and re-emitting IR black body radiation and thus not contributing to heating the atmosphere. (That's hardly layman's terms is it? I tried.)

Rhienhardt says in his Paper that if he ignored collisions in his equations that his equations would almost fall in line with ICPP estimates for heating of the atmosphere by additional CO2 concentrations.

[lost_shaman]

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's quite a debating technique you have:  if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, use vague threats.  The last time I had that tactic used on me, I was in the sixth grade.  What grade did you say you were in?  At least be specific.  Exactly what is it you're threatening me with?

You know, you could always just block me.  That would solve the problem for you.

Good grief man, I just meant I'd spend more of my precious free time wiping your nonsense away! Kinda like dusting the house, not something I like to do but it's more necessary the dustier the house gets.  

Did someone in sixth grade also question your intellectual honesty? LOL Too bad there wasn't a "safe space" for you back then! 

I don't block UM members. I haven't done so except possibly once in my 12 years here on UM and I don't even remember if I actually ever did block that one person. My tactics are to either strengthen my position until I overcome a fallacious opinion or either move on or admit my own fallacy once I discover one. 

[Doug1029]

10 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Yes that does say it! If you read the abstract he states the goal was to simplify the Math in order to determine CO2s maximum contribution to heating the atmosphere at different concentrations. The simple way to do this is to over estimate this heating in the equations as opposed to attempting to model the exact contribution which complex algorithms and super computers attempt to do. 

I'm not a Physicist either, but what Rhienhardt shows with his equations is that CO2s major contribution to atmospheric heating comes from excited CO2 molecules which have absorbed an IR photon colliding with other atmospheric molecular species as opposed to re-emission of an IR photon to return to its non-excited state in the troposphere. This is where Rhienhardt is able to show that the ICPP models are overestimating atmospheric heating by CO2 simply because they assume CO2 molecules are re-emitting most of the IR photons they absorb in all directions leading to increased IR failing to escape the atmosphere and causing increased IR radiation heating the Earth's surface.  

In layman's terms what he is showing is that a small concentration of CO2 (~150 ppmv my estimate) does almost all of the heating in the lower atmosphere that CO2 causes, and that if we double or quadruple this CO2 concentration the heating CO2 causes falls off logarithmically. That basically means you just end up with more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that are not in an excited state and are not absorbing and re-emitting IR black body radiation and thus not contributing to heating the atmosphere. (That's hardly layman's terms is it? I tried.)

Rhienhardt says in his Paper that if he ignored collisions in his equations that his equations would almost fall in line with ICPP estimates for heating of the atmosphere by additional CO2 concentrations.

So far, the increase in CO₂ has not caused any fall-off in global warming.  That being said, we have had a number of volcanic eruptions lately that have the potential to introduce a period of cooling - maybe six or eight years of it, and the next solar minimum will occur in 2020:  we are going into that situation right now.  So we'll probably see a little cooling over the next few years.  The test of Rheinhardt's theory will come after the solar minimum.  If temps start going up again about 2025, there will be reason to question his results.

On the other hand, we are increasing CO₂ pollution at any accelerating rate.  That will cancel out any benefit from Rheinhardt's theory.

So maybe Rheinhardt is right and maybe not, But I still have to wonder why he didn't put his ideas in front of his colleagues.  He put a lot of work into that paper and then squandered it by self-publishing.

Note that other people (including I) have looked at the correlation between temps and [CO₂] and concluded that CO₂ directly contributes about 3% of warming.  The rest is coming indirectly from feedback loops involving the albedo effect and possibly other causes (like the increased insulating capabilities of increasing cloud cover).  A lot of warming is coming from those sources, but they are driven by increasing CO₂ levels.  So CO₂ gets the blame anyway.

 

Another though:  CO₂ is doing a lot more than just warming things up.  It is acidifying the oceans and messing with the food chain.  It is altering storm paths and intensities.  It is affecting ocean circulation and may be the cause of our "Beast from the East."  It is being blamed for our three major hurricanes last year.  The list goes on...  So we still have lots of reasons to get CO₂ under control.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

12 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

So far, the increase in CO₂ has not caused any fall-off in global warming.

Correlation is not causation! Have you not understood this simple fact after all these years? You seem to imply here that increasing CO2 concentrations will cause Earth to start cooling IF we show that increased CO2 concentrations lead to less CO2 caused warming. That is niave and not the case. The Earth is slighly warming but you Alarmist seem to attribute all of this warming to CO2 when that just is not the case. Land use changes by humans and resulting Albedo changes contribute to more warming than CO2 increases but you Alarmists that advocate for carbon taxes willfully ignore this fact! 

You know that farming and cattle raising began around 10,000 years ago. Humans grazing cattle are the cause of the de-greening of North Africa creating the Sahara desert for example. There was deforestation in Europe for farming as well. Later after the discovery of the Americas diseases from Europe killed off about 50 million people in south America alone, where their Farmland was abandoned and forest over grew the old farmland which increased Albedo and also altered the hydro-logical cycle in that area.  Not much later there is the deforestation of North America East of the Mississippi river, again altering the Albedo and hydro-logical cycle in that area. It is said, for example, that a squirrel could go from the east coast to the Mississippi river without ever needing to touch the ground. 

You Alarmist ignore all these things in order to LASER focus solely on CO2. Before the industrial revolution the Vikings colonized Greenland, it gets it name from them because it was warmer and lush with forest, it had to be abandoned in large part because it froze up and was no longer as habitable as it was when first colonized. 

Climate Science today is a Joke because you Alarmists ignore the true impact Humans have had on the Climate to solely focus on CO2 which is just a complex way to get more people who don't understand what is going on to fall in line with the old anti- "Big Oil" lobby started by the Sierrea Club and Green Peace.

14 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

On the other hand, we are increasing CO₂ pollution at any accelerating rate.  That will cancel out any benefit from Rheinhardt's theory.

You clearly do not understand what Rheinhardt's Paper says. For one thing CO2 is vital to life on Earth! It is not a pollutant, saying that it is is just a propaganda talking point you Alarmists employ. He says that increasing CO2 will simply have less and less effect as concentrations rise. 

 

14 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

So maybe Rheinhardt is right and maybe not, But I still have to wonder why he didn't put his ideas in front of his colleagues.  He put a lot of work into that paper and then squandered it by self-publishing.

You are so wrong on this point. Self publishing is going to be the future and Peer review will occur out in the open for all to see just as we discuss these topics here on UM. 

 

14 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Note that other people (including I) have looked at the correlation between temps and [CO₂] and concluded that CO₂ directly contributes about 3% of warming.  The rest is coming indirectly from feedback loops involving the albedo effect and possibly other causes (like the increased insulating capabilities of increasing cloud cover).  A lot of warming is coming from those sources, but they are driven by increasing CO₂ levels.  So CO₂ gets the blame anyway.

Rheinhardt says CO2 attributes ~3 degrees C of atmospheric heat. See my discussion of Albedo and land use above. We almost agree with one another until you go back to your LASER like focus on CO2! Albedo and hydrological responses DWARF CO2 not the other way around as you seem to religiously believe.

[Doug1029]

4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Correlation is not causation! Have you not understood this simple fact after all these years? You seem to imply here that increasing CO2 concentrations will cause Earth to start cooling IF we show that increased CO2 concentrations lead to less CO2 caused warming. That is niave and not the case.

WRONG!  All I have to do is look at a graph of temperatures over time.  Warming is accelerating!  Establishing a correlation between time and temperature says nothing about CO₂.  HOWEVER:  There is a correlation between temperatures and CO₂.

The slight drop-off in temps since 2014 is not statistically significant.  When that line starts to turn down, we can say that we are getting a handle on the problem.  But it will be several years before any downturn in CO₂ can be detected statistically.

4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

The Earth is slighly warming but you Alarmist seem to attribute all of this warming to CO2 when that just is not the case. Land use changes by humans and resulting Albedo changes contribute to more warming than CO2 increases but you Alarmists that advocate for carbon taxes willfully ignore this fact! 

WRONG AGAIN.  Warming also correlates with sunspot activity (a convenient measure of solar activity).  And methane and CFC concentrations have an affect.

Land use changes affect the amount of carbon in the soil.  When a forest is cleared, for example, the carbon oxidizes to become CO₂ which is then discharged to the air.  So once again, the culprit is CO₂.  Carbon can be sequestered by planting trees, or grasses or curbing over-grazing.  Yes.  Land use affects climate, but it does so by affecting [CO₂].

And about albedo:  the warmer it gets, the more water that evaporates from exposed water sources.  That increases cloudiness, which should cool the earth by reflecting sunlight back into space.  But it also warms the earth's surface by insulating it.  So surface thermometers show warming, while atmospheric measurements show cooling.  That initial warming is caused by - you guessed it - CO₂.

4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

You know that farming and cattle raising began around 10,000 years ago. Humans grazing cattle are the cause of the de-greening of North Africa creating the Sahara desert for example. There was deforestation in Europe for farming as well. Later after the discovery of the Americas diseases from Europe killed off about 50 million people in south America alone, where their Farmland was abandoned and forest over grew the old farmland which increased Albedo and also altered the hydro-logical cycle in that area.  Not much later there is the deforestation of North America East of the Mississippi river, again altering the Albedo and hydro-logical cycle in that area. It is said, for example, that a squirrel could go from the east coast to the Mississippi river without ever needing to touch the ground. 

Ruddiman, W. F.  2005.  How did humans first affect global climate?  Scientific American (March 2005) 292, 46-53.  doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0305-46.

Human farming activities started detectably affecting atmospheric CO₂ about 8000 years ago.  That was at the height of the Altithermal, at which time the Sahara was a vast grassland.  Overgrazing with resultant desertification and a drying climate brought on by the Milankovitch Cycles changed it to a desert.  Desertification releases CO₂ to the atmosphere, so CO₂ played a significant, if small, part in that process.

Most of Europe was deforested in the eighteenth century.  America followed suit a hundred years later.  Warming was already well along before deforestation became an issue.  All deforestation did was accelerate the process.  And while deforestation does alter the albedo, it also releases CO₂ into the air.  Example:  a Douglas-fir forest may contain up to three million kg of carbon per hectare, more than half of which is either in the form of dead wood, or buried in the soil.  When that forest is cleared, there is about 2 gm of carbon per square decimeter of soil in the top 10 centimeters.  That's about 200 kg per hectare:  1/75,000 what it had before.  Where did that carbon go?  To the atmosphere as CO₂.

It is debatable, but there still might be places where a squirrel could go from the Atlantic to the Mississippi without touching the ground.  You could check it out on Google Earth.  Might be a fun exercise.  And worth a public-interest article in some nature magazine.

I am running out of time.  Maybe I can get back to you later.  In the meantime:  you wouldn't make so many stupid mistakes if you spent some time reading up on climate change.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

WRONG!  All I have to do is look at a graph of temperatures over time.  Warming is accelerating! 

Maybe it is, but that doesn't mean CO2 is the cause. 

 

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

There is a correlation between temperatures and CO₂.

A very weak one. That is what Rheinhardt is saying. 

 

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

The slight drop-off in temps since 2014 is not statistically significant.  When that line starts to turn down, we can say that we are getting a handle on the problem.  But it will be several years before any downturn in CO₂ can be detected statistically.

We don't need a "downturn" in CO2! It's not a problem.

 

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

WRONG AGAIN.  Warming also correlates with sunspot activity (a convenient measure of solar activity).  And methane and CFC concentrations have an affect.

Save Solar activity for another thread. I watch that issue very closely. As for CFC's they have been increasing and no-one is sure where they are coming from right now.

 

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Land use changes affect the amount of carbon in the soil.  When a forest is cleared, for example, the carbon oxidizes to become CO₂ which is then discharged to the air.  So once again, the culprit is CO₂.  Carbon can be sequestered by planting trees, or grasses or curbing over-grazing.  Yes.  Land use affects climate, but it does so by affecting [CO₂].

Look here is a perfect example of your LASER like focus on CO2. Yes land use changes can effect the amount of carbon in the soil, but Albedo and hydrological changes from land use changes DWARF anything CO2 contributes. 

 

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

And about albedo:  the warmer it gets, the more water that evaporates from exposed water sources.  That increases cloudiness, which should cool the earth by reflecting sunlight back into space.  But it also warms the earth's surface by insulating it.  So surface thermometers show warming, while atmospheric measurements show cooling.  That initial warming is caused by - you guessed it - CO₂.

Again, listening to you one might think CO2 is a religion. For you it may be? However, natural variability does cause the temperature to fluctuate and always has. The Roman warm period was arguably warmer than today and water vapor and clouds didn't cause a catastrophe then. CO2 didn't cause that warming and the climate didn't runaway out of control did it Doug? 

 

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Human farming activities started detectably affecting atmospheric CO₂ about 8000 years ago.  That was at the height of the Altithermal, at which time the Sahara was a vast grassland.  Overgrazing with resultant desertification and a drying climate brought on by the Milankovitch Cycles changed it to a desert.  Desertification releases CO₂ to the atmosphere, so CO₂ played a significant, if small, part in that process.

Again, you are close to the truth but just can not accept that CO2 is not the main driver of climate! CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and it simply does not drive the Climate. CO2 is itself a feedback not a DRIVER of the climate. If you open your eyes maybe you can see this for yourself before you retire, but you are so indoctrinated that I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on that! 

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Maybe it is, but that doesn't mean CO2 is the cause. 

Didn't say it was.  There are lots of "causes."  Including Milankovitch Cycles, solar activity, natural CO₂ discharge and human-caused CO₂ discharge.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

A very weak one. That is what Rheinhardt is saying. 

The correlation between temperatures and CO₂ concentration is 89.6% using a straight-line model.  You can't beat that with a stick.  Not many correlations in the natural sciences are this strong (100% is a perfect fit.).  You and Rheinhardt better take another look at the data.

I think what you are trying to say is that the EFFECT of CO₂ is a weak one; that's the coefficient, not the correlation.  Rheinhardt says CO₂ accounts for about three degrees of warming.  Since there has only been about two degrees of greenhouse warming, he is saying that CO₂ is producing about 50% more warming than his model predicts.  That needs some explaining.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

We don't need a "downturn" in CO2! It's not a problem.

We need temperature over time to begin showing a downturn before we can assume we are getting anywhere with all our wind turbines and such.  As of now, that hasn't happened.  If temps continue to rise, then your statement that CO₂ is not the cause may be correct.  Until that happens, your claim is (pardon the pun) a lot of hot air.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

As for CFC's they have been increasing and no-one is sure where they are coming from right now.

True that.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Look here is a perfect example of your LASER like focus on CO2. Yes land use changes can effect the amount of carbon in the soil, but Albedo and hydrological changes from land use changes DWARF anything CO2 contributes. 

That's probably part of the equation, too.  But in order to support that claim, you need data that you can model and albedo data is hard to get.  We do have sky-cover estimates going back into the 1820s.  Maybe we can develop a model that incorporates them.  I really don't know if anybody has tried it.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Again, listening to you one might think CO2 is a religion. For you it may be? However, natural variability does cause the temperature to fluctuate and always has. The Roman warm period was arguably warmer than today and water vapor and clouds didn't cause a catastrophe then. CO2 didn't cause that warming and the climate didn't runaway out of control did it Doug? 

"Natural variability" is measurable using a standard error.  The standard error for the straight-line model above is 0.0892 degrees.  Specify the CO₂ concentration in ppm and the model spits out the temp in hundredths of a degree C.  That's about two year's warming at the current rate.

The Roman Period was the last peak of the Bond Cycle.  We are now in another one.  But this time, temps are higher.  What's different?  CO₂.

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Again, you are close to the truth but just can not accept that CO2 is not the main driver of climate! CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and it simply does not drive the Climate. CO2 is itself a feedback not a DRIVER of the climate. If you open your eyes maybe you can see this for yourself before you retire, but you are so indoctrinated that I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on that! 

You decry the opinion of the vast majority of scientists, but offer no evidence to the contrary.  Nobody is going to believe you until tou produce some evidence.  Right now, all you have is a wild, unsupported idea.  Science is evidence-based.  So put up some evidence.

Doug

Edited June 20, 2018 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

On 6/20/2018 at 3:07 PM, Doug1o29 said:

The correlation between temperatures and CO₂ concentration is 89.6% using a straight-line model.  You can't beat that with a stick.  Not many correlations in the natural sciences are this strong (100% is a perfect fit.).  You and Rheinhardt better take another look at the data.

Just as meaningless as if you correlate the rise in CO2 in ppmv over time via Mauna loa data. The straight line model there is something like 98%, but it simply shows CO2 has risen over time. Why is that meaningless? It's because we know that time has progressed steadily since Mauna loa data has been tracked and also that CO2 has risen almost as steadily over that short amount of time. The amount of time is really short and the rise in CO2 per year over that short amount of time was steady. That is all this type of linear regression tells us. If we had a much longer data set for CO2 rise/fall the linear regression would show a much lower correlation. 

Now we also know temperature has been slowly rising over time although with more fluctuation than CO2 or time. So I suspect you've simply substituted Temperature rise for time in the same simple linear type straight line regression and you'll end up with a high correlation but one that is equally meaningless! You could take any two variables that are steadily progressing (over time) and end up with straight line regression model that shows a high correlation! This is why such a correlation is meaningless! Thus the axiom Correlation does not equate to Causation!

On 6/20/2018 at 3:07 PM, Doug1o29 said:

I think what you are trying to say is that the EFFECT of CO₂ is a weak one; that's the coefficient, not the correlation.  Rheinhardt says CO₂ accounts for about three degrees of warming.  Since there has only been about two degrees of greenhouse warming, he is saying that CO₂ is producing about 50% more warming than his model predicts.  That needs some explaining.

Now you are just obfuscating, or haven't read the Paper! CO2 accounts for about 3 degrees of warming at pre-industrial to current levels. Rheinhardt agrees with this, he is calculating how much more warming CO2 will contribute at higher levels such as a doubling of current levels and on up to 4,000 ppmv levels. He says that Temperatures have risen around 1 degree since pre-industrial times and that doubling of those CO2 levels will account for around 0.26 of a degree.  He only calculates CO2s contribution at different levels. He shows mathematically that CO2s contribution to atmospheric temperature falls off logarithmically. 

You are either creating a Strawman argument here or deliberately obfuscating the facts. Either way you are being intellectually dishonest.

Edited June 22, 2018 by lost_shaman

[Doug1029]

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Just as meaningless as if you correlate the rise in CO2 in ppmv over time via Mauna loa data. The straight line model there is something like 98%, but it simply shows CO2 has risen over time. Why is that meaningless? It's because we know that time has progressed steadily since Mauna loa data has been tracked and also that CO2 has risen almost as steadily over that short amount of time. The amount of time is really short and the rise in CO2 per year over that short amount of time was steady. That is all this type of linear regression tells us. If we had a much longer data set for CO2 rise/fall the linear regression would show a much lower correlation. 

Now we also know temperature has been slowly rising over time although with more fluctuation than CO2 or time. So I suspect you've simply substituted Temperature rise for time in the same simple linear type straight line regression and you'll end up with a high correlation but one that is equally meaningless! You could take any two variables that are steadily progressing (over time) and end up with straight line regression model that shows a high correlation! This is why such a correlation is meaningless! Thus the axiom Correlation does not equate to Causation!

We have 50 years of CO₂ data from Mauna Loa.  That is enough to render the finite population correction effectively zero.  And if you somehow got 98% out of that data, I'd surely like to know what you did.

The exponential model yields an r² value of 24.2%, leaving a lot more to unexplained events and random noise.  But from a glance at Mauna Loa's CO₂ curve, it is immediately obviously that the correct model is an exponential curve, so something's wrong with the way the regression was set up.  Maybe CO₂ should have its own coefficient?

As CO₂ rises by one unit, temps rise by one unit.  But in the next interval, CO₂ rises by one unit, but temps go up by more than one unit.  This is true across the entire range of Mauna Loa data.  So the rise in CO₂ is NOT steady: IT IS ACCELERATING.

Awhile back you posted a list of CO₂ concentrations taken from ice cores.  That list contained records going back 115 centuries, 11,500 years.  That's into the last ice age.  At that time, glacial ice stood between Erie, Pennsylvania and Buffalo, New York.  Lake Erie's northeast shore was a glacier and the rest of the Great Lakes were still buried in ice.  Is that a long enough dataset for you, or would you like something longer?  There are ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years.  So why don't we do a linear regression and find out what the correlation is?  The hard part is translating that data into an EXCEL or SAS file.  The regression is a piece of cake.

It is true that correlation does not equal causation, but without correlation, you can't establish causation.  Correlation is a necessary condition of causation.  So what do you think is the causing both CO₂ and temps to rise on concert?

 

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Now you are just obfuscating, or haven't read the Paper! CO2 accounts for about 3 degrees of warming at pre-industrial to current levels. Rheinhardt agrees with this, he is calculating how much more warming CO2 will contribute at higher levels such as a doubling of current levels and on up to 4,000 ppmv levels. He says that Temperatures have risen around 1 degree since pre-industrial times and that doubling of those CO2 levels will account for around 0.26 of a degree.  He only calculates CO2s contribution at different levels. He shows mathematically that CO2s contribution to atmospheric temperature falls off logarithmically.

I misremembered what he said.

"Pre-industrial" is an arbitrary term.  Pick a year and base your calculations on that.  4000ppmbv is nearly ten times current CO₂ levels.  NOBODY is talking about that level ever being reached.  We are anticipating perhaps a doubling of current CO₂ levels.  Beyond that?  Who knows?  That is beyond our current horizon.

BTW:  temps have risen about 1.6 to 1.7 degrees since 1828.  Temperature rise in the continental Arctic is now about 4 degrees while in Brazil, there hasn't been any change.

So even if he's right and CO₂ does drop off logarithnically, it only becomes significant at levels we don't expect it ever to reach.  So this article, even if right, is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

Doug

P.S.:  We have been talking about time curves.  Standard statistical methods don't apply.  Be careful to correct for this.

Doug

Edited June 22, 2018 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

23 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

We have 50 years of CO₂ data from Mauna Loa.  That is enough to render the finite population correction effectively zero.  And if you somehow got 98% out of that data, I'd surely like to know what you did.

 

Doug likes to play games. He clearly knows exactly what I was saying yet he pretends he doesn't have a clue. Here is the Mouna loa data for CO2 over time (1960 - 2000) below. Readers can judge for themselves if they think Doug has never seen this and doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Note the correlation in the straight line leaner graph above is 99% for 1960 -2000, if you add in recent years this percentage will fall off slightly because CO2 emissions (from all sources combined) have leveled off. Or effectively peaked for the last few years (although they had been increasing in year earlier that this graph above does not show [2000 - 2014]).

[lost_shaman]

On 6/22/2018 at 8:56 AM, Doug1o29 said:

The exponential model yields an r² value of 24.2%, leaving a lot more to unexplained events and random noise.  But from a glance at Mauna Loa's CO₂ curve, it is immediately obviously that the correct model is an exponential curve, so something's wrong with the way the regression was set up.  Maybe CO₂ should have its own coefficient?

What are you talking about? You said the linear straight line regression between temperature and CO2 was near perfect fit at 89%. You claimed Rheinhardt had explaining to do, but this was just intellectual dishonesty on your part. Now you say the correct model of CO2 should be an exponential curve!!! This is just more word salad intellectual dishonesty on your part! There is nothing "exponential" about CO2s slow and mostly steady rise in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have plateaued in recent years, while this is likely not a peak in emissions it certainly doesn't look anything like an exponential curve as you are suggesting.

 

On 6/22/2018 at 8:56 AM, Doug1o29 said:

As CO₂ rises by one unit, temps rise by one unit.  But in the next interval, CO₂ rises by one unit, but temps go up by more than one unit.  This is true across the entire range of Mauna Loa data.  So the rise in CO₂ is NOT steady: IT IS ACCELERATING.

More word salad Doug? Remember this thread is about NOAA re-writing temperature history. The rise in CO2 has not been accelerating, it's the adjustments to our Temperature history that have been accelerating to seemingly show recent years look hotter while making past Temperatures look cooler. 

 

On 6/22/2018 at 8:56 AM, Doug1o29 said:

It is true that correlation does not equal causation, but without correlation, you can't establish causation.  Correlation is a necessary condition of causation.  So what do you think is the causing both CO₂ and temps to rise on concert?

In the past CO2 increases followed Temperature rise, and vise versa CO2 levels dropped folowing Temperature falls. i.e. CO2 was not the driver of Temperature change in the past. What we are seeing now is an anomaly were Humans have increased the Albedo of the Planet's surface over the last ~8,000 years causing a heat imbalance, or artificial fluctuation. For example when humans began to traverse the world early on there were major land use changes like the de-vegetation of what is now the Sahara desert which altered global rainfall patterns. Later around 1610 we can see that disease from Europe devastated ~50 million people in South America alone. With no-one left to farm the land, millions of acres of Farmland reverted into what we now know as the Amazon rain-forest, again this altered Earth's Albedo and weather patterns. This can be seen in Ice cores.

Both the Sahara desert and Amazon rain-forest are relatively young land ( younger than the peak of the inter-glacier period we are currently in) both are the result in large part to Human land use changes. Both contribute to current heating due to these changes although the growth of the Amazon rain-forest must have been a huge carbon sink as rain-forest initially over grew large swaths of grass and farmland not to mention flooding the South Pacific with nutrients that would have caused major plankton and diatom growth as the Rain-forest advanced creating it's own weather patterns, namely flooding, along it's evolution. It does not take a large leap of faith to posit that only these two events were major contributors to both the Roman warm period and the little ice age. 

What I said about the Amazon may confuse you Doug. As CO2 concentrations rise the heating effect falls off logarithmically, this is true, but a large Carbon sink like the growth of the Amazon rain-forest does the opposite. This logarithmic nature of CO2s contribution to heating also works logarithmically in reverse so that lower and lower concentrations of CO2 in the Atmosphere will result in higher and higher rates of atmospheric cooling! So the Amazon is likely contributing to heating the Earth today due to hydro-logical retention and Albedo change, it could have also been a major contributor to global cooling during the Little Ice Age as Forest overgrew large swaths of farmland after disease killed off ~ 50,000,000 farmers who had kept large swaths of the Amazon in both grassland and Farmland. 

 

[lost_shaman]

On 6/22/2018 at 8:56 AM, Doug1o29 said:

"Pre-industrial" is an arbitrary term.  Pick a year and base your calculations on that. 

We've already discussed this in depth here on this thread.Unless you want to revise what we've discussed you are beating a dead horse here.

 

On 6/22/2018 at 8:56 AM, Doug1o29 said:

4000ppmbv is nearly ten times current CO₂ levels.  NOBODY is talking about that level ever being reached.  We are anticipating perhaps a doubling of current CO₂ levels.  Beyond that?  Who knows?  That is beyond our current horizon.

Well no, that doesn't stop Rheinhardt from applying his equations to those levels. He says at current rates with nothing changing we would reach that level (4,000 ppmv) in around 200 years. You and James Hansen which you cited many times before have talked about posibilities going from 300 -500 years from now. So there is nothing wrong with Rheinhardt discussing what he said.

 

On 6/22/2018 at 8:56 AM, Doug1o29 said:

BTW:  temps have risen about 1.6 to 1.7 degrees since 1828.  Temperature rise in the continental Arctic is now about 4 degrees while in Brazil, there hasn't been any change.

 

There was lots of change in Brazil, it just happened before 1828.See my post #450 above.

 

On 6/22/2018 at 8:56 AM, Doug1o29 said:

So even if he's right and CO₂ does drop off logarithnically, it only becomes significant at levels we don't expect it ever to reach.  So this article, even if right, is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

EXACTLY! He says at 4,000 ppmv this would only equate to 0.86 K warming. We will not reach that level ever! 

[Doug1029]

On 6/23/2018 at 9:02 AM, lost_shaman said:

Doug likes to play games. He clearly knows exactly what I was saying yet he pretends he doesn't have a clue. Here is the Mouna loa data for CO2 over time (1960 - 2000) below. Readers can judge for themselves if they think Doug has never seen this and doesn't know what I'm talking about.

Note the correlation in the straight line leaner graph above is 99% for 1960 -2000, if you add in recent years this percentage will fall off slightly because CO2 emissions (from all sources combined) have leveled off. Or effectively peaked for the last few years (although they had been increasing in year earlier that this graph above does not show [2000 - 2014]).

There you go mixing apples and oranges again.  Rheinhardt is talking about the correlation between temperatures vs.[CO₂].  You are posting a graph of [CO₂] vs. time.  He agrees that [CO₂

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

There you go mixing apples and oranges again.  Rheinhardt is talking about the correlation between temperatures vs.[CO₂].  You are posting a graph of [CO₂] vs. time.  He agrees that [CO₂

UM's computer deleted the bottom half of my reply and I'm not going to type all that over again.

Suffice it to say that you didn't read your own graph before you posted it.  Yours is about Co2 over time, while Rheinhardt is talking about TEMPERATURES over time.

You graph deleted the year 1959 and does not go past 2000.  The NCDC dataset includes 1959 and goes through 2016.  The straight-line correlation isn't quite as good as the one you show, but there is little practical difference.  Also, there is no decline in CO2 concentration.  There is a steady increase of 8% per year.

It was MEAN ANNUAL INCREMENT that declined for two years (2011 and 2012), but then resumed.  Could your source be getting these two confused?

Doug

[lost_shaman]

On 6/25/2018 at 8:10 AM, Doug1o29 said:

There you go mixing apples and oranges again.  Rheinhardt is talking about the correlation between temperatures vs.[CO₂].  You are posting a graph of [CO₂] vs. time. 

Yes that is exactly what I posted and I explained why and the point I was making by posting it. 

Sorry you lost half a post. Welcome to the club. This is one reason I try to keep my posts as short and succinct as is reasonable to make my point. At any rate you just have to suck it up, it happens to lots of us. 

[Doug1029]

Just an update on the Plains and Eastern Clean Line:

Effective today, Plains and Eastern sold its Oklahoma holdings to Nexterra.  Nexterra represents itself as the world's largest wind utility.  It is also invested in natural gas and is a major shareholder of Florida Power.

A lawsuit challenging the Department of Energy's authority to participate in the Clean Line has been dismissed..

Arkansas legislators have appealed to Scott Pruitt to intervene to "preserve states rights" and keep the Federal government from overruling Arkansas.  The Arkansas regulatory commission has not approved the Clean Line's right-of-way.  It seems there are some landowners with political connections who are blocking the route.

 

And so we go:  politics seems to be a bigger barrier than any technical issue in implementing clean, efficient energy.

Doug

 

[lost_shaman]

On 6/25/2018 at 9:48 AM, Doug1o29 said:

Suffice it to say that you didn't read your own graph before you posted it.  Yours is about Co2 over time, while Rheinhardt is talking about TEMPERATURES over time.

See my post #460. I was explicitly talking about CO2 over Time. I explained what I was talking about in that post ( CO2 over Time). Then, in post # 462 I posted a graph showing CO2 concentrations over Time! 

So don't dare accuse me of 'not reading my own graph'!!!  Perhaps you should go back and read what I was saying before posting a knee-jerk Ad Hominem! 

[lost_shaman]

On 6/22/2018 at 8:56 AM, Doug1o29 said:

As CO₂ rises by one unit, temps rise by one unit.  But in the next interval, CO₂ rises by one unit, but temps go up by more than one unit. 

You are completely off base here. You do not understand the Physics. 

What is the Earth's mean average temperature? It's 288 K. Roughly 59 F, and it's been quite steady since we've kept records. 

Why is this mean average temperature not being revised upwards? It is because the Earth is still in an equilibrium state. For example, El Nino's and La Nina's affect the weather but over all they tend to cancel each other out because they are internal states and therefore only effect temperature distributions but do not reflect Earth's actual energy budget directly. 

You Alarmist tell us more CO2 will result in more warming, and you point to the "shoulders" of CO2's 15 um absorption band expanding as CO2 doubles or triples in atmospheric concentrations. This is completely wrong because you do not understand Physics! 

At 288 K the peak IR black body radiation wavelength is  

Where b is Wien's displacement constant 2.8977685 10-3 and T is Temperature in Kelvins. 

So at 288 K,  the peak IR black body radiation wavelength is 10.0617 um. (Note that this peak black body radiation is already well below CO2's 15 um peak absortion band)  

Now an Alarmist like Doug would say that if CO2 doubles in concentration, the "shoulders" of the 15um absorption band of CO2 will expand and cause atmospheric heating. But Doug doesn't understand Wien's displacement constant, here if the Earth's temperature was to rise the peak IR black body radiation wavelength will also shorten meaning that the Earth will become much more efficient at radiating heat into space. This is because the peak wave length Earth emits in IR black body radiation becomes shorter and falls further outside the absorption wave lengths of Water Vapor and CO2s main absorption bands. The "Shoulders" of CO2s 15 um band are more than off-set by the higher peak wave lengths of a slightly warmer Black body.

 

 

[Doug1029]

8 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

You are completely off base here. You do not understand the Physics. 

I'm not  talking about physics.  I'm talking about mathematics.  All positive exponential curves do that.  CO2 vs. time is a positive exponential curve.  Better get out your high school math book again and look it up.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I'm not  talking about physics.  I'm talking about mathematics.  All positive exponential curves do that.  CO2 vs. time is a positive exponential curve.  Better get out your high school math book again and look it up.

 

I know you don't understand the physics. I was showing you how two meaningless variables that are both rising tend to show a great correlation, while this is meaningless. 

READ what I've said here.

While you are at it get an undergrad to explain Wien's displacement constant to you! So you can see for yourself how your argument fails.

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by lost_shaman

[Doug1029]

On 6/15/2018 at 2:58 PM, bmk1245 said:

Well, then, you may help Doug with his data crunching for free, or at least for few $. Will you?

bmk1245 and Socks Junior:

I will be starting that project in September.  I will have a co-author from the statistics department.

I can probably do all the math and stat myself, but I'd like somebody watching my back in case I screw up something.  It's worth a co-authorship, maybe two, to have that.

The subject is slopover plots used in forest inventory.  The math is mostly high school-level geometry and trig.  It's complex, but really only a long series of simple problems.  The statistics part is mostly philosophical:

1.  Can a partial plot generate one-half degree of freedom?  My answer:  yes.

2.  Can a mirage plot offset the distortion caused by the slopver plot?  My answer:  no.

3.  Are doubled trees real trees?  My answer:  no.  This is where I'm challenging orthodoxy.  A lot of problems just go away if doubled trees are not considered real (There's an alternate way of correcting volume figures that works just as well and produces the same estimates without all the statistical nightmares.).

4.  How are volume, basal area and similar per-acre figures corrected for reduced sampling probability in the edge strip?  I think I have this worked out, but there's a problem:  trees at the stand boundary have a correction factor approaching infinity.  The actual chances of this happening approach zero, but if it ever does, the results are a disaster.  I hope I'm wrong and that there is some simple solution I'm missing.  I'm thinking there may be some limit imposed by finite samples that would keep the infinite correction from applying.  The infinite correction assumes an infinite sample.

5.  Should sampling probability in the edge strip be calculated based on partial plot areas, or on some other feature of the plot?  I'm thinking plot areas is the answer.  In the case of circular plots, it doesn't matter, but with rectangular plots, there is quite a difference in results.

Anyway, it promises to be a fun project.

Doug

 

 

[lost_shaman]

Well I guess Doug isn't interested in the physics that dictate CO2s contribution to Earth's climate. That's the only thing I can conclude from his "wild" ideas (e.g. fog stops CO2 from absorbing IR black body radiation for example) and total lack of understanding of how greenhouse gases actually work in Earth's atmosphere. All I asked in post #472 above was that he get someone at the University to explain to him how Wien's wavelength displacement constant works to him. 

Since Doug doesn't bother to understand any of this I will explain it simply and succinctly to everyone so I'm not just talking to myself here.

This is the simple equation for a black body's peak radiation wavelength.   

(b) is Wien's wavelength displacement constant. 2.8977645 E-3

(T) is temperature in Kelvin.

So that is simple. If we know for example that Earth's average annual temperature is 288 K, then we can use Wien's wavelength displacement constant (2.8977645 E-3) to solve for Earth's peak black body radiation wavelength. Let's do the math,... 2.8977645 E-3 / 288 = 0.000100617 Or simply stated as 10.0617 um (microns). 

Here is a simple graph showing how wavelength displacement of black body radiation moves toward higher energies at higher temperatures. 

This is a simple and crude graph but is shows how Wien's wavelength displacement constant works. The warmer a black body is, the further peak black body radiation moves towards higher energies. We can see from this graph despite it's crude nature shows that our calculation for peak black body wavelength of 10.0617 um for the Earth's average annual temperature of at 288 K is correct. 

Well you might be asking what does this have to do with CO2? Well everything actually is the answer. I'll explain, CO2s peak absorption wavelength is 15 um but it also absorbs to a small degree wavelengths about 1 um on either side of that 15 um peak. So CO2 absorbs a slight amount of black body infrared radiation starting at 14 um and ending at 16 um. This slight amount of absorption on either side of 15 um are referred to as the "shoulders" of CO2s 15 um absorption band. This fact (the "shoulders" of the 15 um absorption band) is what Global Warmist Alamists like Doug want people to think will cause catastrophic warming if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere double or triple. The logic here (which is flawed) makes perfect sense to uninformed people. The flawed logic should mean more CO2 in the atmosphere will mean more infrared absorption at the "shoulders" of CO2s main 15 um absorption band and heat the Earth's atmosphere. i.e. Global Warming. 

So why is the logic stated above FLAWED? Well in a way it is not. This is where things get slightly more complicated and cause confusion. Let me explain. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as concentrations rise there is more absorption at the "shoulders" of the 15 um absorption band of CO2. This does actually cause a slight amount of warming in the atmosphere. So why are the Alarmists wrong? The answer is simple but easily overlooked, refer back to Wien's wavelength displacement constant. If a black body's temperature rises not only does the peak wavelength shorten but the emittance of energy at that wavelength also rises. This means that when a black body's temperature rises not only does the peak wavelength shorten but it also emits more energy at that shorter wavelength! You can see this fact in the crude graph I posted above. 

What does this mean for Global Warming? What it means is that if some parts of the Earth warm from higher CO2 concentrations for example Wien's wavelength displacement constant cause those parts of the Earth to emit black body infrared radiation at shorter wavelengths and also become more efficient at radiating that energy back out to space. As the wavelengths of black body radiation shorten there is less infrared radiation for CO2 to absorb at its "shoulders" and also at the peak 15 um wavelength. Those regions of Earth that are getting hotter mostly over land are also getting more efficient at radiating heat to space.  So the Earth will reach an equilibrium as all black body's do despite a slight amount of warming from doubling or tripling of CO2 concentrations. 

Let me go back to Wien's displacement constant. The Earth's average annual temperature at 288 K has a peak wavelength of 10.0617 um we have done the math. Most of that energy already escapes to space. Why? Because this wavelength is already well below both CO2s and water vapors peak absorption lines (H2O drops off around 16 um and CO2 begins around that wavelength). So if a region of the Earth warms it also emits more black body infrared radiation to space right past the two most prominent greenhouse gases! 

For example I live in North Texas and it is early night time right now and the outside temperature is roughly 80 F or 299 K. This is normal for this time of evening and in this region. If we apply Wien's displacement constant to find the peak black body wavelength then the atmosphere above my yard is emitting at 9.69 um. So even if CO2 concentrations are higher and absorbing more black body radiation at it's "shoulders" the wavelength and energy emitted move both further away from the absorption bands of both CO2 and H2O and the amount of energy bypassing them increases. Even at a mild 80 F (299 K) this more than offsets any extra infrared radiation higher CO2 levels can absorb at its "shoulders" of its main 15 um absorption band. This is why the Alarmists arguments, like Doug's, are FLAWED and completely wrong. It DOES NOT matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere its main absorption band that causes warming is stuck at 15 um while a black body's amount of radiation wavelengths are shortened and emit more energy at warmer temperatures.

I know what I've said here is not quite layman's terms but it does take a bit of physics to explain simply what is happening here. I'll try my best to explain more simply if anyone has any questions. 

 

 

 

[Doug1029]

On 7/13/2018 at 11:57 PM, lost_shaman said:

Well I guess Doug isn't interested in the physics that dictate CO2s contribution to Earth's climate. That's the only thing I can conclude from his "wild" ideas (e.g. fog stops CO2 from absorbing IR black body radiation for example) and total lack of understanding of how greenhouse gases actually work in Earth's atmosphere. All I asked in post #472 above was that he get someone at the University to explain to him how Wien's wavelength displacement constant works to him. 

Since Doug doesn't bother to understand any of this I will explain it simply and succinctly to everyone so I'm not just talking to myself here.

This is the simple equation for a black body's peak radiation wavelength.   

(b) is Wien's wavelength displacement constant. 2.8977645 E-3

(T) is temperature in Kelvin.

So that is simple. If we know for example that Earth's average annual temperature is 288 K, then we can use Wien's wavelength displacement constant (2.8977645 E-3) to solve for Earth's peak black body radiation wavelength. Let's do the math,... 2.8977645 E-3 / 288 = 0.000100617 Or simply stated as 10.0617 um (microns). 

Here is a simple graph showing how wavelength displacement of black body radiation moves toward higher energies at higher temperatures. 

This is a simple and crude graph but is shows how Wien's wavelength displacement constant works. The warmer a black body is, the further peak black body radiation moves towards higher energies. We can see from this graph despite it's crude nature shows that our calculation for peak black body wavelength of 10.0617 um for the Earth's average annual temperature of at 288 K is correct. 

Well you might be asking what does this have to do with CO2? Well everything actually is the answer. I'll explain, CO2s peak absorption wavelength is 15 um but it also absorbs to a small degree wavelengths about 1 um on either side of that 15 um peak. So CO2 absorbs a slight amount of black body infrared radiation starting at 14 um and ending at 16 um. This slight amount of absorption on either side of 15 um are referred to as the "shoulders" of CO2s 15 um absorption band. This fact (the "shoulders" of the 15 um absorption band) is what Global Warmist Alamists like Doug want people to think will cause catastrophic warming if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere double or triple. The logic here (which is flawed) makes perfect sense to uninformed people. The flawed logic should mean more CO2 in the atmosphere will mean more infrared absorption at the "shoulders" of CO2s main 15 um absorption band and heat the Earth's atmosphere. i.e. Global Warming. 

So why is the logic stated above FLAWED? Well in a way it is not. This is where things get slightly more complicated and cause confusion. Let me explain. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as concentrations rise there is more absorption at the "shoulders" of the 15 um absorption band of CO2. This does actually cause a slight amount of warming in the atmosphere. So why are the Alarmists wrong? The answer is simple but easily overlooked, refer back to Wien's wavelength displacement constant. If a black body's temperature rises not only does the peak wavelength shorten but the emittance of energy at that wavelength also rises. This means that when a black body's temperature rises not only does the peak wavelength shorten but it also emits more energy at that shorter wavelength! You can see this fact in the crude graph I posted above. 

What does this mean for Global Warming? What it means is that if some parts of the Earth warm from higher CO2 concentrations for example Wien's wavelength displacement constant cause those parts of the Earth to emit black body infrared radiation at shorter wavelengths and also become more efficient at radiating that energy back out to space. As the wavelengths of black body radiation shorten there is less infrared radiation for CO2 to absorb at its "shoulders" and also at the peak 15 um wavelength. Those regions of Earth that are getting hotter mostly over land are also getting more efficient at radiating heat to space.  So the Earth will reach an equilibrium as all black body's do despite a slight amount of warming from doubling or tripling of CO2 concentrations. 

Let me go back to Wien's displacement constant. The Earth's average annual temperature at 288 K has a peak wavelength of 10.0617 um we have done the math. Most of that energy already escapes to space. Why? Because this wavelength is already well below both CO2s and water vapors peak absorption lines (H2O drops off around 16 um and CO2 begins around that wavelength). So if a region of the Earth warms it also emits more black body infrared radiation to space right past the two most prominent greenhouse gases! 

For example I live in North Texas and it is early night time right now and the outside temperature is roughly 80 F or 299 K. This is normal for this time of evening and in this region. If we apply Wien's displacement constant to find the peak black body wavelength then the atmosphere above my yard is emitting at 9.69 um. So even if CO2 concentrations are higher and absorbing more black body radiation at it's "shoulders" the wavelength and energy emitted move both further away from the absorption bands of both CO2 and H2O and the amount of energy bypassing them increases. Even at a mild 80 F (299 K) this more than offsets any extra infrared radiation higher CO2 levels can absorb at its "shoulders" of its main 15 um absorption band. This is why the Alarmists arguments, like Doug's, are FLAWED and completely wrong. It DOES NOT matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere its main absorption band that causes warming is stuck at 15 um while a black body's amount of radiation wavelengths are shortened and emit more energy at warmer temperatures.

I know what I've said here is not quite layman's terms but it does take a bit of physics to explain simply what is happening here. I'll try my best to explain more simply if anyone has any questions. 

 

 

 

Sounds like the blind leading the blind.

First, most of your assumptions about what I believe about CO2 are wrong.

Second, at concentrations near 400 ppm, the relationship between temperature and CO2 is indistinguishable from a straight line.  Even if right, all your blathering about temperature increase slowing as CO2 rises is irrelevant to anything we're likely to see.

Third, there isn't enough commercial carbon on earth to produce 4000 ppm in the atmosphere.

Fourth, an ecological collapse will occur long before we could possibly approach 4000 ppm.

Rheinhardt's paper is irrelevant to global warming.

Doug