Michael hart, Harold W, Sandy S

Just an impression. I use simple back-of-the-envelope calculation and and school science. My calculations repeatedly get very close to real world values.

You use much more sophisticated science to achieve a poorer match to reality. Most of the extra factors you consider seem to cancel each other out. Perhaps you should not overcomplicate things.

Michael hart

At what date did you expect inflections to occur. I see none in the CO2 graph, let alone in the oxygen.Mar 2, 2014 at 6:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

That's my point, I don't see them anywhere either. They should be there where the relatively very large human increases in human fossil-fuel consumption occur. If you can't see much evidence for your assertions in either data set, then perhaps that evidence is either not very large, or not there at all. [I note you have yourself already asserted that the natural fluxes of CO2/O2 sources and sinks are not exactly co-located in space and time. It is indeed complex]

You talk at considerable length about error bars. Could you be more specific about their size and how you calculated them.

Not my error bars, Entropic man, yours and others to acknowledge and describe.
I described the maximum possible error in your primary chemical stoichiometry assumptions as a factor of 2, and you come back asking me to put numbers on some error bars I talked about “at considerable length”! Perhaps I made it too simple or brief, but something which could be out by a factor of 2 could have a possible error of either 50% or 100%, depending on how you define it.

I'm not going to go through and correct every single error or cheeky assumption in either yours, or the IPCC's, arguments [I think I have on another occasion posted a recent reference to a paper which suggested the calculated nitrogen fixation budget was different in numbers (i.e. in error) by a quite similar to those just mentioned above. I would be surprised if it wasn't larger still.]. I'm trying to get you to realise or acknowledge that these fuzzy assumptions exist, seemingly at almost every turn, and are significant. This is what people often mean by the 'smell test'.

Michael hart, Harold W, Sandy S

"Just an impression. I use simple back-of-the-envelope calculation and and school science. My calculations repeatedly get very close to real world values.

You use much more sophisticated science to achieve a poorer match to reality. Most of the extra factors you consider seem to cancel each other out. Perhaps you should not overcomplicate things."

Even simple models must overcome simple objections. It's not my fault if the world is more complex than you now choose to calculate
.
If the natural and anthropogenic carbon fluxes both carried, say, a 10% uncertainty (likely much higher than 10%) and the absolute value of the natural flux was the larger by a factor of 10 (it is much larger than 10), then even the conservative error in the natural flux is as great as the entire anthropogenic flux. ...And then you expect people to accept that the anthropogenic numbers tally up with good precision to give a reasonably accurate answer? In the real world, when you see such numbers adding up precisely, it is usually because they have been made to add up.

You cannot (usually) accurately weigh a flea on the dog's tail by weighing the dog twice, once with and once without the flea in place, and then subtracting the two numbers.

Michael hart

Inflections

Why do you expect inflections? Industrial CO2 production is increasing along a slowly accelerating curve. Are inflrctions another sceptic straw man?

http://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/international-emissions/historical

"Likely much more than 10%"

Where did this come from? This illustrates my point. You quote much larger error bars than appear in the literature, apparently generated by your own imagination.

Entropic Man,
Climate change, Climate changes always did, always will. So let’s get back to the original proposition :-
The increase in global temperature since the start of the industrial revolution is MAINLY caused by increase in CO2 concentrations cause by Man burning fossil fuel. Test. Concentrations of CO2 have continued to rise unabated since 1998 however the global temperature has remain close to zero. Theory FAILS the empirical test. It is said that natural variation have cancelled the effects of MGW however if this is true it cannot be more than half and the temperature increase must be at least half during the positive phase of these natural variations. There is a much better correlations between other natural cycles than the atmospheric concentrations of CO2. e.g. Solar Cycles, Ocean Cycles.

There is no evidence that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have any effect on global temperature all the evidence you point to is only circumstantial.

The UK contributions to world man-made CO2 emission is just 1.8% even if we reduced our emissions to zero it would have absolutely no effect on global temperature however the cost is enormous , both to our poor, our industry and our environment. If is policy madness.

Why do you expect inflections? Industrial CO2 production is increasing along a slowly accelerating curve. Are inflrctions another sceptic straw man?
Mar 3, 2014 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

If they are increasing slowly, then why are we having this discussion at all? There is plenty of time to develop nuclear power to satisfy our needs while we phase out carbon-based energy sources.

Ross lea

Unfortunately the land/ocean surface temperature record is not the only metric of climate change.Your argument is too simple because you only conaider one metric of climate change among many. What you are seeing is that metric slowing as energy diverts to other areas of the climate syatem. Warming has not stopped: different areas are being warmed.

There is considerable evidence for cAGW. Your cognitive dissonance is the problem.

The UK produces 1.8% of world CO2 emissions, from 0.8% of the world population, yet you want to maintain it. If you know the Prisoner's Dilemma, that is a "defect" strategy.

Michael hart

You misread my post. The rate of access!station is slow ; the rate of production is considerable.

Entropic man, So you subscribe to the theory of the "missing heat" is lurking somewhere on or in the planet when the logical conclusion is that it has been reflected from the top of clouds off into space. I would like to know where you think this heat is hiding ? The satellite sensors now cover the whole planet and we now have Argo bouys monitoring the oceans. When the planet was warming global temperature anomalies were good enough as a metric then so why not now ? Clutching at straws is what it is to try and support a theory that has failed the empirical test.

Entropic Man, Hello, are you still there ? Can I recommend this at WUWT. I hope you will take a little time to read the comments at least some are well informed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/04/no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months/

I also recommedn this from one of the commentors:-

http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/rss-monthly-global-anomalies-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-filters-of-annual-with-s-g-annual-and-15-years.png

Ross Lea

If the "missing heat" is leaving as reflection from clouds it would show as an increase in visible light albedo. This has not occurred.

The ocean has a much greater heat capacity than the atmosphere. The small temperature increases observed between the surface and 2000m are sufficient to account for the energy coming in due to the imbalance. Another smaller sink is the 500km^3 melting off the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. The latent heat of fusion incorporated into the meltwater shows in the energy budget, but produces no temperature change.

Try doing the numbers. You will find that the meltwater and thermal expansion of the oceans can be used to back calculate the temperature change and the energy absorbed.

This matches the imbalance. There is no missing heat..it has been accounted for.

"You misread my post. The rate of access!station is slow ; the rate of production is considerable.
Mar 3, 2014 at 11:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man "

?
I'm having trouble reading this one too.

Entropic Man

In support of my arguments I would ask you to consider this from Notrickszone.com

German Meteorology Professor: Don’t Expect Warming Until Mid Century! … CO2 Models “Have A Fundamental Problem”!

http://notrickszone.com/2014/03/03/german-meteorology-professor-dont-expect-warming-until-mid-century-co2-models-have-a-fundamental-problem/

worth reading is the comment by D o u g C o t t o n
3. März 2014 at 23:22

Entropic Man

I can also recommend this from Paul Homewood's blog

Sea Level Rise Slowing Down Around The UK’s Coast
March 3, 2014

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/sea-level-rise-slowing-down-around-the-uks-coast/

Michael hart

Sorry, this tablet keeps printing what it thinks I want to say.

That should have been" acceleration ".

The slope of the Law Dome/Keeling curve is gradually increasing as our CO2 production increases. Over 130 years it is clearly visible, but over decadal time scales the increase is close enough to linear to make little practical difference.

Ross Lea

Marburg has some strange looking graphs, especially his curious trend lines. They show decines in data which looks flat.

May I ask how much you know about the design and interpretation of climate models?

You should also tread cautiously around Doug Cotton. He is what is generally called a sky dragon slayer, with some very unconventional ideas and no experimental support.

Regarding the sea level data, note that all three graphs show an increasing slope in the 1970s and stop at 1980, losing their more recent behaviour.. A cynic would wonder if the author went looking for sites and time periods which fitted his expectations.

Entropic Man

"with some very unconventional ideas and no experimental support." Plate tectontics was an unconventional idea. It was once thought that gastric ulcers were caused by stress until an Australian scientist discovered (by accident) that the main cause was a type of ecoi bacteria. "with some very unconventional ideas and no experimental support." just about sums up the theory that Atmospheric conentrations of CO2 cause dangerous global warming.

I have read the principle books by our host, The Slayers, Bob Carter, Bob Tisdale etc. and I keep an ojective open mind on all.
My principal interest is the enigma of the obvious corelation between solar cycles and past global temperatures. I also find Bob Tisdales book. "Cllimate Models Fail" gives a very good account of the Ocean Cycles. I follow with interest the developments, I also have high hopes of the work being carried out at Cern by Kasper Kirkby and his team.

I do not believe you have done any objective reseach and you mind is made up.
Can I point you to the comment on the main blog
by Bishop Hill IPCC hides the good news
by Mar 6, 2014 at 7:24 AM | lapogus which sums up my current thinking.

Entropic Man

Here is another site worth a look

http://www.davidarchibald.info/

:Entropic: Mar 5, 2014 at 12:33 AM

This matches the imbalance. There is no missing heat..it has been accounted for.

I am having some trouble here, perhaps it is my logic that is faulty, possibly you can help me out?

There is a measured TOA imbalance which shows a net energy input, constant over time. While the instrument's precision is not in doubt, its accuracy is. To correct the accuracy an offset has been ascribed to it by computation by a computer model using changes observed in OHC over the same time period. That model has not been verified. How can it be verified and how can the actual imbalance be quantified?

Measured imbalance currently shows no trend during a period of rising CO2. If it were to show any reducing trend then it could be argued that whatever we are currently doing is leading to a point of balance. Alarm from the AGW hypothesis would be over. If it were to show an increasing trend then it could be argued that whatever we are doing is leading to changes in the atmosphere and alarm from the AGW hypothesis would be justified to some greater or lesser extent. As it shows no trend, this suggests that whatever we are doing is having no effect at TOA. If we are having no effect then it follows that the correct offset is one that shows the imbalance as zero. The conclusion is, therefore, that both the model calculated imbalance is incorrect as is its current understanding of additional atmospheric CO2 upon that.

Ssat

The imbalance occurs because the climate system is out of equilibrium, warming because something has reduced the rate of energy loss below the rate of energy input.

If the imbalance was decreasing with time it would indicate that we were moving closer to equilibrium and could expect temperatures to stabilise soon.

If the imbalance was increasing, then we would be moving further from equilibrium and could expect the rate of temperature change to increase.

In practice the imbalance remains roughly constant. We remain at the same distance from equilibrium and the rate of temperature change roughly constant.

My own interpretation is that the measure of disequilibrium is the difference between transient climate response and equilibrium climate sensitivity. As CO2 increases, both TCR and ECS are increasing at about the same rate and the difference between them remains constant. Hence the constant imbalance.

Regarding verification, the only sure way is to check the output of our measurements against the behaviour of the system in retrospect, a century hence. For now one accepts the validity of the measurements or one does not. For laymen like ourselves that has to be more of a value judgement than a scientific one.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/14/a-fish-story-from-antarctica/
EM,

Leaving aside the Antarctic Peninsula. The bulk of Antarctica has not been warming. It certainly hasn’t been warming enough to affect the melting of ice much. The theory goes that the ice has been melting from the warm water beneath but we are also told that the sea water is so cold and pure it now forms more surface ice. How is this cold, purer water melting the glaciers at a faster rate from underneath but at the same time producing record seasonal ice? Is it not more likely that geological factors are melting more ice (if indeed there is more melt), that in turn cools the water, that in turn forms sea ice? Not proof of global warming or cooling.

Tinyco2

This paper from Jiping Liu and Judith Curry might help.

http://m.pnas.org/content/107/34/14987.full

HaroldW

I refer to the CERES data. If you search "CERES TOA imbalance" then you will find a number of sources that have graphed the data. One such would be here;

http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf

I believe you can also obtain the data directly from;

http://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSelection.jsp

I haven't done that myself having only an interest in any trend but believe it comes in graphical output as shown here;

http://scienceofdoom.com/2013/01/20/visualizing-atmospheric-radiation-part-nine-reaching-equilibrium/

if you scroll down into the comments.

I hope this helps (and that I have not misinterpreted).

Entropic: 1:25 PM

Your paras 2 & 3 reiterate my comments and so we are in agreement there. We are both aware that CERES shows an unbelievable TOA imbalance which has been 'corrected', mostly by reference to OHC in the absence of surface warming over the same period. We can see that there is no trend in the net imbalance which places that observation directly between the conclusions of 2 & 3 which would logically be that the planet is neither heating nor cooling. If that logic is correct then for climate science to conclude that energy is still accumulating would appear to be more to support the hypothesis of AGW than to understand its ramifications on it.

I continue to be troubled by the thought that, without any trend, the conclusion must be that there is no imbalance. I thank you for your comments.

Ssat

There is a difference between "No trend equals no imbalance" and "No trend equals constant imbalance"

I am confident that the latter is correct.