The 2015 El Niño

The tell tale signs of inconsistent denial are apparent as climate contrarians attempt to deal with strange weather occurring over the globe in 2015.

Strange weather

2015 will almost certainly be the hottest year on record when looking at the average of global temperatures. There are extreme and often strange weather patterns being reported particularly towards the end on the 2015 year. Many of the weather patterns that have occurred are those that are to be expected in an El Niño year including not only droughts in Indonesia helping the spread of wildfires but also far afield as in California bringing rain after a prolonged period of drought. A milder winter and so far with extreme rain in the UK in December, however, is not so easily associated with the El Niño and certainly a short period of exceptionally warm weather all the way towards the North Pole due to weakened jet stream is not what was expected. It seems we see the effect of global warming contributing to weather patterns including the El Niño but in other cases overshadowing some of the expectations of an El Niño.

Seeing half the cycle.

What is to be expected though is the typical climate contrarian viewpoint regards these weather patterns that one comes across in comments on social media sites and blogs. True to form you will see the contrarian tell you that these extreme weather patterns and the global average temperature reaching a new high record and that these are all due to the presence of the El Niño. Now one could forgive them for believing that the El Nino has contributed to all these events but what may be of surprise (to those unfamiliar to the strategies of the anthropogenic global warming denier) is that most of these arguing these points seem to have become sudden experts of the El Nino which is part of a larger ocean and atmosphere weather cycle, ENSO, that not only changes rainfall and drought patterns but permits the atmosphere to warm largely from heat from the oceans. Only a few months ago many of these new “experts” could be seen denying the weather pattern associated with the El Nino when this weather pattern was storing heat in the oceans.

In some years surface temperature do not rise and one reason among other possible natural cyclic variations for this is that the ENSO cycle is causing heat to be stored in the oceans in spite of an increase in greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. This ability of heat to be stored is often denied by the contrarian.

In other years the temperatures of the surface can increase rapidly as the El Nino contributes to the global warming. This contribution is readily accepted by these same contrarians.

Of course this ability to only accept half a cycle can be seen with contrarians in the past as they attempt to deal with the carbon cycle and CO2 concentrations. 

Nova’s Analogy

Nova’s Rerouting Analogy.

Jo Nova’s “pipes and dams” analogy fails in its purpose and highlights the flaws in this rerouting thinking.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-11-an-alternative-modeling-strategy/

Nova’s Analogy.

Nova doesn’t understand her analogy.

An analogy is used without the realisation that an analogy cannot be expected to account for all the features that it is supposed to represent.

The obvious.

When greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere it doesn’t stop radiation escaping to space when equilibrium is reached. If it did the Earth would not stop getting hotter and hotter. Conventional thinking with vast amounts of research and evidence are dismissed by this rerouting proposal.

The myth presented by the rerouting idea is based on the simplistic thinking that if the energy is just eventually all radiated to space by whatever means then the surface can’t get warmer. It also then assumes that if water vapour plays a part in this then it must be a negative feedback. This confuses the part that water vapour plays in the Planck response with the positive feedback due to water vapour.

The Explanation.

When equilibrium is reached in her very large “bath tub” the outgoing flow will still equal the ingoing flow. This is still true even as the pipes are partially blocked. David Archer I recall made some very good analogies using bath tubs for educational purposes. David Archer was well aware of how the analogy worked and its limitations.

It should have been obvious to Nova that if the level in the reservoir did not rise then the flow to the other pipes would not increase. As Nova herself should have realised... how would the other pipes know or even “think” that ....unless the reservoir level rose and added extra pressure to make these other flows increase?

This of course IS the Planck response. It is sometimes referred to as a negative feedback but what it really means is that the Earth’s surface and atmosphere heats up to a new level increasing the outgoing long wave radiation to what is was prior to the addition of the extra greenhouse gases.

When greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere the initial outgoing LW radiation is reduced. The Earth responds by getting warmer until the outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere again is in balance with the incoming solar energy. The bath tub level raises until the total outgoing flows equal the incoming flows to the reservoir.

The analogy is limited.

The greenhouse effect works by greenhouse gases absorbing and emitting longwave radiation. When more GHG are added to the atmosphere more back radiation heats the surface which in turn increases the outgoing LW radiation and eventually (at equilibrium) the outgoing radiation will equal that of the incoming radiation.

Since CO2 raises the temperature of the atmosphere then the amount of water vapour will increase making the greenhouse effect larger. Thus water vapour will increase the amount of radiation to space but also the radiation back to the surface. This is a positive feedback and not a negative feedback.

Genuine research.

This rerouting  proposal  reminds me of a genuine scientific investigation by Lacis et al using GCM’s whereby different gases could be added to the atmosphere or removed from the atmosphere and the effects observed.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Lacis_etal_1.pdf

By comparing the top of the atmosphere outgoing radiation with the surface radiation, a global average greenhouse effect, GHE, is experimentally observed on Earth to be about 152W/m². This can be verified using the GCM’s whereby all GHG are removed as seen in the short term. (Greater surface cooling is observed if these GHG are removed over longer terms because the ice albedo positive feedback kicks in). If CO2 is singly added to the GHG depleted atmosphere it creates about 40W/m2 immediately to the GHE. This value is larger than its contribution today because it overlaps with wavelengths that would be absorbed by water vapour, WV, mainly but also by other GHG. This overlap can be quantified by another experiment. If CO2 alone is removed from an otherwise complete GHG compliment then it reduces the GHE by 24W/m2. In this case the other GHG’s absorb wavelengths that would be absorbed by CO2. Lacis et al calculate a normalised GHE due to CO2 in our present atmosphere of 31W/m2 or about 20% of the GHE. Similarly it can be shown that WV contributes about 75% of the GHE. However, importantly, they also look at the response of a WV only depleted atmosphere and notice that within days the WV is returned due mainly to the influence on temperature from the presence of the other GHG’s and in particular CO2. (In fact they estimate that about 80% of the WV is returned due to GHG from similar experiments by finding out how much WV would exist without any of the other non-condensing GHG). This of course is a measure of the WV feedback.

Nova has crudely attempted to look at these overlaps, ignore the positive WV feedback and instead has confused the role of water vapour’s contribution to the Planck response as a negative feedback.

Rehashed Myths

David Evans and his rerouting negative feedback.

The climate contrarian longingly awaits for a new theory for climate change. The greenhouse effect has been rejected at every level from denying CO2 concentrations are growing because of human emissions, to denying there is a greenhouse effect, or accepting that there is a GHE but it is very small. The contrarian will happily believe all of these. Evans claims yes there is a greenhouse effect but it is very small and is preparing for his ultimate blog to falsely claim the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is less than 1C and when you include feedbacks it will be even smaller. This will be readily accepted by the gullible. His analogy he presents is flawed however and would in fact lead to the opposite...... ..runaway temperatures.

How is Evans going to do this?

He has prepared ground by inventing new terminology for the Planck feedback effect. He will be able to simplify this and then count it twice to introduce extra negative feedbacks.

A strategy that he uses is to say some fact, that he realizes the typical climate contrarian may be unaware of, and pretend it is something new. First, however, let us look at the Planck effect.

The Planck feedback effect.

When greenhouse gases are increased energy radiated to space via longwave radiation,LWR, is reduced for certain wavelengths. The temperature at the surface increases and radiation to space from other wavelengths are increased from the surface and gases in the atmosphere. (You can see the effect of a distorted frequency spectrum of LWR to space as viewed from satellites). Eventually equilibrium is achieved whereby the radiation coming into the atmosphere and leaving the atmosphere are once again balanced. On average this will mean that radiation to space occurs at a higher altitude. The only way equilibrium can be achieved is by higher temperatures being reached. The Planck effect stops further increases in temperature. It must exist otherwise temperatures would runaway and we would “cook”.

Now if this information is given to the typical contrarian it will be rejected. But if Evans pretends he has found something new, when he says radiation is rerouted, it will be readily accepted in the belief that a new negative feedback has been found.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-7-rerouting-feedback-in-climate-models/

I expect we will see Evans making further use of this to achieve his unrealistic lower climate sensitivity in future blogs that is not only contrary to climate models but also paleoclimate evidence.

Evans will effectively use the Planck effect via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and use it AGAIN when he introduces this as a negative feedback on top of this Planck feedback effect. He will count the same effect twice just under different names.

His electrical analogy using currents and resistors  however is fatally flawed.

According to this analogy if one of the “pipe” lines is blocked the current (outgoing heat) would be reduced and never reach equilibrium (meaning reach its previous value). The outgoing long wave radiation would be less than the previous outgoing LWR that was equal to the incoming solar radiation. We would cook. This is regardless of any other parallel resistors and should be obvious to those with a basic understanding of elementary “resistors in parallel” theory.

Again nothing new.

Not realizing his rerouting idea is just a flawed look at the Planck response he considers this in his next blog.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-8-applying-the-stefan-boltzmann-law-to-earth/

“There is no single layer that radiates to space, instead emissions come from many different heights, depending on the wavelength. We could average the emissions into “one layer”, but doing that would lose detail that matters when computing sensitivity to increasing CO2.”

This is another example of pretending to say something new. However ironically, yet again, it is Evans who fails to take account of this and not the climate models.

After a rather trivial point including the emissivity of the Earth to LWR to be slightly less than 1 he decides to talk about an effective radiating temperature and a real Earth.

“While the numerical difference between T_R and T_e is insignificant, here we are concerned with OLR from the real Earth so it is more natural to use radiating temperature (and technically incorrect to use T_e, at least conceptually).”

Yet again it is Evans who fails to deal with a real Earth.

When Evans calculates the “Stefan-Boltzmann’s sensitivity” and claims it is different than Planck feedback it is different because it is he who has failed to take account of his two observations regarding single layers and the real world.

He has used a zero dimensional model for a back of the envelope calculation, (good enough for use in teaching elementary introductory aspects of climate science), assuming no changes in altitude for different wavelengths or changes across the surface of the Earth. He has also assumed a change in Te (or whatever he would like to call it) instead of a change in temperature at the surface for a given feedback response in W/m2 to achieve equilibrium. With a forcing due to greenhouse gases there is no change in Te when equilibrium is reached but there is a change in Ts.

Evans has calculated the simple rate of change of effective radiating temperature with respect to the outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere instead of the more complex but meaningful rate of change of surface temperature with respect to the outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere and hence arrives at the simplified Te/4R (or Tr/4R) approximation for the feedback free climate sensitivity parameter. 

Blind belief of inconsistent denial

By Pat Hackett.

Blind belief is about believing in an argument without thinking through the reasoning for yourself. These accusations are often made by those debating climate science, particularly in social media groups. I think it is interesting to look at the extent and the reasons for this. If you have experienced these debates you will have little doubt about how polarized these can be.

There is good reason why many have belief, however it is blind belief in inconsistent denial that it is the most destructive and can dominate many of these “debates”.

Belief, of course, involves acceptance and there can be good reason for many to accept, and likewise there is good reason for skepticism. I will discuss these initially before I look at some examples of inconsistency and half truths that will help you identify cases whether or not the person is engaging in denial.

When it comes to scientific matters it is probably better to think in terms of trusting the scientific system rather than belief. No one can be expected to be fully aware in all the related climate science involved. If there was a blatant error in the reasoning behind say the greenhouse effect then of the thousands of scientists who work in related fields some would have discovered this by now and come up with a better explanation to replace the greenhouse effect. This hasn’t happened over the years.

AGW

Humans affecting climate change via global warming is normally referred to as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Very briefly the case for this is that humans are causing the emission of so called greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions to increase with the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use. These GHG are building up in the atmosphere and cause the Earth to warm more than it otherwise would. This is called the greenhouse effect (GHE). The increased heat can have effects on other factors such as water vapour and ice (among a host of other possible changes normally referred to as feedbacks) which in turn can affect the heating of the planet. Some of these feedbacks can stabilize the atmosphere while some of these feedbacks can amplify the warming.

Skepticism

Scientists hypothesize, for example, on a range of values for climate sensitivity and science in general looks at these openly and skeptically in a balanced way:-

The basic physics of the greenhouse effect is almost universally agreed by scientists, however the extent of the feedbacks are under debate,  and hence there is great uncertainty of the resulting climate sensitivity which addresses how much the Earth will actually warm due to the GHG. There is also great uncertainty in how the earth will warm up as we see in the variations in our local weather. When reports come out on extreme weather it cannot be ascertained that any particular extreme can be put down to global warming. Also it cannot be expected that the Earth will warm uniformly across all regions and distribute this heat into the atmosphere, oceans and ice layers also in a uniform way.

Back in early 2014 there were extreme floods in the south of the UK and much of the media, some politicians and a few scientists said this was a direct result of global warming. Skeptical scientists did not draw these conclusions. Scientists are rightly skeptical in nature and before they broadly accept proposals they will require a greater understanding. In this case they would more likely ask the question is this evidence consistent with GW, and if so can it be statistically verified? The statistical verification of a single event in this case is naturally not likely.

The Non-scientist

How can the non-scientist, or indeed the non specialists, cope with different reports and claims?

This is a difficult but important issue to deal with. It cannot be expected for the majority of the population to understand and have knowledge of the relevant science and mathematics involved. However there are straightforward strategies that can be used to avoid making mistakes.

It is sensible to listen to the experts, to those scientists, who specialize in studying climate changes past and present. However, if you are getting the information from blogs or through social media, you may have doubt as to who the experts are, and so you will need other strategies. Don’t just accept the middle ground as a play safe strategy in replace of using reason. The average of a truth and a deliberate lie will more than likely always resemble a lie.

Look for consistency, or easier look for blatant inconsistent claims.

Beware of half truths.

I will look at each of these two pointers to look out for, with some examples that I have observed on internet sites. In addition I would beware of claims that are precise without uncertainty. Astrologers and other fortune tellers have no reluctance in making bold claims and it is inevitable that some of these will be right some of the time.

Climate Debates

If you have at any time looked at social media sites on climate change you will normally find the opinions very polarized with little room for debate. . The reasons for denial I will leave for the moment; however that is a fascinating topic. If you are interested in following this line you could follow this link here to a MOOC course with the following aims:-

• How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
• How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
• How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
• How to effectively debunk climate misinformation

However in this blog I will focus on spotting those in denial, by identifying their inconsistency or their use of half truths.

Inconsistency

A good cherry-picker will make their own boundaries, time scales, which laws to apply and when, when they want their data adjusted and when they dont. Having this total freedom they can then get any data to show their pre-conceived conclusions.

If you are scientifically skeptical and looking for honest objective viewpoints on the areas of climate science that are less than certain the first thing you will come across is inconsistency that may well surprise you. Often this is ....Blind belief of inconsistent denial practiced by those who call themselves skeptics. It is though they have grasped the worst of all ....blind acceptance, inconsistency, denial of science
  Here I will look at common examples. These are extremely common examples put forward by the same “skeptics” as they discuss different issues perhaps on different days or perhaps within minutes of each other turning back round on the inconsistent claims. It would appear that each of these inconsistent claims can be combined in any combination producing a seemingly endless variety of confusion. These discussions involve sharing and or “liking” blogs and other internet articles.

Example1. (The most common and simplistic.) CO2 is not rising. CO2 is rising very fast but temperatures are not.

Now you wouldn’t think that it would be common for “skeptics” to select share and like articles supporting both these points but indeed they do. (The more “sophisticated” will use multiple accounts to hide this, and often start with...”nobody claims  such and such    but oh yes they do)

In one post it is argued that we cannot possibly know the concentration of CO2 reliably enough to say that it is increasing and in any case the observation site (although there are many) is situated on top of a volcano. Another post on another occasion the same people argue ( sharing articles) that show graphs with “suitable” scales to claim CO2 is rising very fast but global average temperatures are not rising as fast. So, it is argued, the claims of CO2 causing temperatures to rise are proven wrong.

Now both of these claims are not accurate (but I will leave these discussions aside), but the point I make here is that the “skeptics” blindly believe both to be true, or at least support these inconsistent arguments.

Example 2. Data is too unreliable to make any conclusions about global temperatures and CO2 concentrations. Detailed claims are made about climates and correlations in the distant past.

The “skeptics” will vehemently argue both of these false statements in separate posts, again, without requiring the need for consistency. In fact as they go further back in time when there are more and more considerations to be taken into account that would affect temperature other than CO2, they become more and more precise about their knowledge of CO2 and temperature ignoring both the other factors and the uncertainties involved. Again not the reasoning of real scientific skepticism.

Example 3. The oceans are absorbing most of the CO2. The oceans cannot be absorbing CO2.

Now you may think ..surely not...people wouldn’t argue both of these...but yes they do.  In the first case they are arguing that CO2 (now admitting it is going up) won’t stay in the atmosphere long and hence the concentrations we see will soon drop (short half life argument). In the second argument they are arguing that pH of the oceans (ocean acidification) can’t be dropping ....because CO2 is not going into the oceans ......because they are warming. (They seem to forget they have been arguing that the oceans have not been warming).

The reality is of course that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing. Some of it is going into the oceans but as the oceans warm it is getting harder for the CO2 to be absorbed.

Example 4 CO2 cant absorb infra-red radiation....we can measure the CO2 from satellites and China are emitting more than us. (us usually being the US)

There are countless arguments saying that CO2 cant absorb infra red radiation. However it is the absorption spectrum that allows us to detect CO2 by non chemical means. Spectroscopy allows us to state the composition not only of gases on earth but across the universe. Blind belief of inconsistent denial will allow the “skeptic” to use data from spectroscopy any deny its absorption properties of electromagnetic radiation simultaneously.

Example 5 The effect is logarithmic. CO2 is only a trace gas.        

The first argument here is that CO2 has its greatest effect (per unit of concentration....this bit not usually included and hence not applied properly) at small concentrations and a later argument that CO2 cannot possibly have any effect because its concentration is too low and again the inconsistency doesn’t seem to cause any cognitive conflict

Further examples include believing in articles supporting any combinations of the above, and in some cases all of the above including..... It is impossible to have any idea of future temperature changes...  We are heading for global cooling, or... The climate sensitivity cannot be known with any certainty ....it is extremely low with precise values stated.

There are also facebook groups dedicated to collecting these inconsistencies and the half truths that I discuss next. (There are also writers who write for this audience knowing full well their lack of skills and having no need for consistency)

Half truths

Half truths are implications hoping the reader to infer a false conclusion.

Volcanoes emit CO2.

(True, but surely not hoping me to infer that they have suddenly started emitting more in phase with human emissions since the industrial revolution.)

Climate changed in the past.

(Implication that because climate changed in the past this excludes humans changing it today.).) In fact without considering GHG as one of the factors that affect climate and temperatures, it is not possible to explain these changes.

Nature emits more CO2 than humans.

(True, but forgets to include nature also absorbs more CO2 while emissions from fossil fuels are only in one direction.)

Warming oceans release CO2.

(True, and this could be bad for the atmosphere, but the oceans are presently absorbing more because the pressure from more CO2 in the atmosphere outweighs this effect. In other words only true if it were only the temperature that was changing but it isn’t.)

Clouds reflect heat.

(A true statement that is usually used to argue that WV is not a +ve feedback. However clouds are not WV. Further higher temperature may result in less or more clouds formation... this is not well known)

It is the sun that is the source of heat, not CO2.

(True. it is not your jacket that is the source of heat. I wouldn’t go out on a cold night without one though.....an analogy.)

Further examples of inconsistency or half-truths will be added to comments below

If only there were more skepticism and less blind belief. What we see is here are examples of gullible blind belief of anything as long as it is not the one thing I don’t want to accept. That is a clear case of denial