Curiously enough, a while ago I came to similar conclusions myself, from a similar analysis.

Here is a somewhat cleaned-up graph using the Hadcrut3 data, showing the ~60 year cycle with the post ~2000 downturn quite nicely.

The similarity of the slope and duration of the ~1910-1940 and ~1970-2000 portions is quite marked, and leads one to wonder why anyone should postulate different causes for the changes during the two periods, Occam’s razor and all that good stuff.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1860/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:120

The red background trend appears to match nicely with the positive phase of the ~1000 cycle that comprises the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and over the given period appears to be increasing at approximately +0.5 deg per century.

Just as a matter of interest here is a section of the Hadcrut3 data that covers the period covered by the Mauna Loa CO2 data (AKA “Keeling Curve”) that appears to show no correlation between the temperature and the CO2 concentration, most definitely one involving a positive feedback, as is required for the (C)AGW hypothesis.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1958/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend:1998/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/trend/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1958/to:1970/trend

1. I’m transferring the idea from other [analytical] radiation systems.

2. The problem people have in understanding radiative energy transfer comes from Prevost himself and in meteorology the use of single pyrgeometers when to measure real energy flux, you need two, back to back; http://www.kippzonen.com/?product/16132/CGR+3.aspx

[see bottom of page].

So, I have created the concept of the intermediate quantum density of states of which GHG molecules are a very good example, able to accept and emit EM energy and also able to accept and transfer kinetic energy [by an indirect route]. This means 4 rate equations.

Thus the purpose of the radiation energy you measure from a colder body in radiative equilibrium with a warmer body is via one of those rate equations to compete with the quantum density of states at the other body. This in turn defines its operational emissivity.

Some physicists refer to a ‘photon gas’ from the cooler body. In no circumstance can this ever do thermodynamic work because by definition, if a body is warmer, more photons are produced from internal kinetic energy that incoming EM energy from the colder body. Planck was getting there when he invented the concept of the photon, but he didn’t like it.

The idea of ‘back radiation’ as an energy source is totally wrong.and it’s easily proved. Put a back to back pyrgeometer pair in zero temperature gradient and net signal = 0. Take one away and you measure ~300 W/m^2 because that’s the signal coming in one direction which is exactly offset by the same signal in the opposite direction. in reality the emissivity of each half of the system is zero.

That’s a powerful concept, variable emissivity. Fixed emissivity only applies to an isolated body in a vacuum.

blouis79,

According to the main stream atmospheric physics the atmosphere emits more IR at all altitudes than it absorbs. Thus your assumption abut the views is false already on this point. The mechanism of GHE is not there and that’s well known.

The point about evaporation is entirely lost.

It’s all about insensibly transporting a vast amount of energy from the surface of the earth to a thousand or more meters above the surface of the earth. Once removed to that distance it has a far easier radiative path to space than it did from the surface and it has a much harder time radiating back to the surface because the same GHGs that resist radiation leaving the surface now resist radiation returning to the surface from the cloud.

Like I said, I’m not the one struggling to find missing heat nor am I the one struggling to explain why the satellite record over its entire 33 year history is only showing half (and falling) the warming predicted by the warmists. The climate system is responding exactly as I expect it to respond based upon my own physical model of what’s the most significant factors and why.

Evaporation and convection are the dominant factors to understand in the atmospheric layer where we live, work, and breathe. We live on a water world. Weather and temperature at and near the surface where we grow crops and build our homes are driven by evaporation, convection, and condensation. Write that down.

I can spoonfeed this stuff to people like Pekka and Lacis or they can choose to ignore it. Makes no difference to me because I’m still the one whose explanations match the observations. I’ll offer it up to anyone who wants to listen given the internet never forgets posterity will ultimately determine who was right and who wasn’t.

Pffffffffffffffffffffffft. I fart in your general direction.

Spartacus,

As you don’t present anything precisely it’s not possible to know fully your arguments or comment the validity of your equations.

I wrote already in my previous comment that there are energy fluxes that cancel partially each other. That’s exactly what is used in pyrgeometers. Up to this point there doesn’t seem to be any disagreement. I don’t know about Prevost, but it seems reasonable to assume that he considered this same point that we agree on.

A new concept like the “intermediate quantum density of states” raises doubts but not knowing what you mean by that that’s all that I can say. The same is true for the new concept of “operational emissivity”.

The further chapters appear to be confused remarks with no clear meaning and without justification. What you say about emissivity is not true for the concept of physics known generally as emissivity. What’s their relationship with your own “operational emissivity” is impossible to say, because the text is unintelligible.

As a PhD physicist shouldn’t you be able to refer me to an experiment showing that downwelling longwave radiation can insulate a body of water against heat loss where evaporation is free to rise in response to the radiation?

Evidently not. Warmists don’t do any experimental science that might reveal the flaws in their hypotheses. It’s all about smoke and mirrors and misunderstood physics that exist only in imaginations and computer models.

In the meantime the earth’s average temperature is doing exactly what I expect it to do. Realty is a real bitch, ain’t it, Pekka? At least for you it is. For me it’s sweet vindication.

I’d suggest that McIntyre’s Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics places him in a stronger position than Mann (Applied Mathematics and Physics) or Jones (Environmental Science (passed), Excel (failed) )

Pekka, Yes, non-linear dynamics are complicated but the only danger I am in is that of having Webster think I am an idiot The approach though is the same as I have used on real world non-linear systems where I was looking for maximum heat transfer efficiency in variable volume systems. The scale and time frames are a touch larger though. In both using as many parallel circuits as possible to verify each step is required.

I have no expectations of the method working perfectly, only that it should show where more attention should be focused. So far that is ice mass balance and so far that looks like perfectly good area to consider. So the next step is to look at why? It is kinda of like destructive modeling, you look for the blow ups or potential blow ups, find what will or may prevent that, then move to the next blow up. There are normally reasons why a complex system doesn’t blow up. It is not much different than A Lacis using unrealistic values in his model to find limits. This just uses ideal balances to find drifts toward runaway imbalances.

The model is an approach to finding problems, then you work on the solutions

“yes, i’ve often suggested this. however they dont keep frozen copies of models around. Constant improvement.”

Not sure where your tongue is, but if it’s not in your cheek – What a load of bollocks! Are you seriously telling us that what I suggest is no longer possible, because the model on which the unskilful prediction was made is no longer available for use? And that you don’t find this sufficient grounds for dismissing it out of hand?

What authority to trust, Pekka asks. How about we trust instruments designed to do the job. Here’s what they show so far:

This is your entire 33 years of UAH/RSS satellite temperature data:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/every/mean:12/offset:0.13/plot/rss/every/trend/offset:0.13/plot/uah/every/mean:12/offset:0.23/plot/uah/every/trend/offset:0.23/plot/none

Both UAH and RSS are in essential almost perfect agreement.

This is that 33 years of precision global average temperature overlayed on 150 years of north Atlantic ocean surface temperature.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/every/mean:12/offset:0.13/plot/rss/every/trend/offset:0.13/plot/uah/every/mean:12/offset:0.23/plot/uah/every/trend/offset:0.23/plot/esrl-amo/every

Note the perfect f*cking fit. Note how it happened that satellite temperature measurement happened to coincide with warming side of 60 year AMDO cycle. Note how when the AMDO went flat in recent years so did the global average temperature.

This appears to be all the proof one should need that before jumping to any hasty conclusions about global warming we need to see if the Atlantic ocscillation cool side repeats and whether the global average temperature tracks it. If it does then anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is falsified.

In my years in big bidness when a large program wound down we’d do what’s called a post mortem to see what things we did right and what we did wrong so as to improve our skill on the next iteration.

The CAGW program post mortem is sure to be fascinating and enlightening but it probably shouldn’t be done the climate science community as that’s about as smart asking the fox to guard the hen-house.

Try not to overthink THIS, Bart.

This is your entire 33 years of UAH/RSS satellite temperature data:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/every/mean:12/offset:0.13/plot/rss/every/trend/offset:0.13/plot/uah/every/mean:12/offset:0.23/plot/uah/every/trend/offset:0.23/plot/none

Both UAH and RSS are in essential almost perfect agreement.

This is that 33 years of precision global average temperature overlayed on 150 years of north Atlantic ocean surface temperature.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/every/mean:12/offset:0.13/plot/rss/every/trend/offset:0.13/plot/uah/every/mean:12/offset:0.23/plot/uah/every/trend/offset:0.23/plot/esrl-amo/every

Note the perfect f*cking fit. Note how it happened that satellite temperature measurement happened to coincide with warming side of 60 year AMDO cycle. Note how when the AMDO went flat in recent years so did the global average temperature.

This appears to be all the proof one should need that before jumping to any hasty conclusions about global warming we need to see if the Atlantic ocscillation cool side repeats and whether the global average temperature tracks it. If it does then anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is falsified.

In my years in big bidness when a large program wound down we’d do what’s called a post mortem to see what things we did right and what we did wrong so as to improve our skill on the next iteration.

The CAGW program post mortem is sure to be fascinating and enlightening but it probably shouldn’t be done the climate science community as that’s about as smart asking the fox to guard the hen-house.

GaryM, Sorry “climatology” is a jargon word which now you mention it is misleading. “Climatology” is used to refer to an average weather over a longer period – eg ERA40 is the average weather during 40 years of the 20th Century. Basically you build your model and validate it against features of this average weather – eg. does the sea level pressure over the Pacific have the right sort of variability, does the Monsoon in India have the right distribution of dates/locations etc. etc.

Latimer,

Sorry matey. Not my job.

We collectively employ people like you to be the ‘professionals’ to work on these problems.

If it is your job (is it your job?) to make irrelevant points from the sidelines then it is worth pointing out that your points are irrelevant. You clearly did not want to discuss the work of Steve Easterbrook in the previous thread because you are required to maintain your meme that Harry_read_me underlies the whole of climate science. Steve’s evidence demonstrates that the model development process can lead to software with a remarkably low number of defects. Whether or not that speaks to the ability of the model to model the climate directly rebuts your harry_read_me example.

You come across to me as a waterfall man whose only contribution to software development is to ensure that people write documents with the right titles and put them in the right coloured folders. I understand there were a lot of them around in the 70s.

How about this irrelevant model…

http://times247.com/articles/arpaio-calls-congress-to-move-on-obama-eligibility

oh, the shame.

So, as Roger Pielke, Sr. described it, GCM’s are engineering style models, subject to the problems of engineering- how to interpret the physics into reality. How cowardly and irresponsible the consensus promoters are to dismiss skeptics as unscientific for doubting the conclusions of the apocalyptic clap trap of the consensus.
Sort of like how to account for clouds or water and ice, as well as humidity. And how to account for the paradox of a warming ocean releasing CO2 yet “acidifying” and how the shallow turbulent layer at the surface drives heat hundreds of meters down.

David,
Yet Andy has the gall to attribute political motives to everyone else, while denying his own.
Just part of what a spoiled government worker and wannabe petty tyrant would want to do: Bite the hand that feeds, and dream of being a Platonic philosopher king.
But Lacis is in good company with his great vision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king

The desperation of the AGW consensus holders is palpable.

Peter @ 2.32 am: of course, I support analysis, modelling, forecasting and CBA, and if I were in government I would make great use of the Productivity Commission. But I don’t think we can get an accurate picture of, say 40, 100, 200 years ahead, and I don’t think that policy can be driven by such long-range assumptions. Like BHP et al, we make sufficient analysis of, say, the next 10-20 years to justify specific policies – the NBN would never have survived such analysis – but we can have little confidence in what conditions might prevail in the second half of the 21st century. What we can do is pursue those policies which give us (all of us, not just government) the most flexibility in dealing with whatever situation develops, those we had correctly foreseen and those not expected.

As an adviser, I used all of those tools to give the best advice I could in devising policies and comparing the merits of alternatives. But I would not have presumed to offer policies re 100 years hence.

Peter@ 3.05 am: fully agree. I worked at the Office of Economic Planning and Advisory Council (EPAC) from 1985-91, an ideal time to be an economist, with a government committed to good policy and many good public service, academic and business economists engaged in it. I think that ALP policy-making has gone downhill since Keating challenged Hawke, and the last five years have been an almost complete repudiation of that earlier period, an appalling government making decisions without reasonable foundation and creating serious damage to Australia. Of course, “we have to do the cost-benefit analysis and do it properly. We have to be able to get the figures out and let people argue based on facts and stated uncertainties. Otherwise, we are left arguing about emotions, morals and who can find the scariest adjectives.” I just don’t think that we can sensibly analyse as far ahead as you suggested earlier, but we can adopt policies which increase our adaptive capacity whatever befalls. So good analysis as far ahead as is feasible, supported by good growth-enhancing general policies from which we will benefit whatever happens.

Latimer,

Pascals wager concerns a reason to believe in God. But no-one can force themselves to believe in anything in particular just for some supposed gain. It just isn’t possible.

On the other hand, if you even think there may be a hungry crocodile living in the creek, even though you believe it to be unlikely on balance, it still makes sense to avoid swimming across if there is an alternative such as a bridge or a ferry available by walking upstream. Its not too hard to force yourself to do that. Any sensible person would at least look for an alternative.

If you follow Greg’s Craven logic with the crocodile problem you’ll agree that it makes perfect sense not to swim across. But of course you could be lucky. The crocodile may decide he’s just not hungry that day.

Peter Lang,

You seem to approve of engineers rather more than scientists. Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t they probably a bit more conservative than scientists? If the bridge will take 10 tonnes, according to theory, wouldn’t they impose a limit of 5?

If an hypothetical Earth’s system engineer were asked to calculate a safe limit for CO2, and other GH, gas concentrations, is it really likely that we’d get an answer of: “Anything you like. Just pump it up as high as you can She’ll be right mate!”

@steve milesworthy

As to the number of errors in Easterbook’s code, I am pretty relaxed. Because the real Numero Uno Problemo is that the models do not accurately predict/project/forecast the future climate. It doesn’t matter how many bugs are in the code if it still produces garbage.

I have asked you several times to produce the long list of triumphs of climate modelling that you have all been paid good money to produce. And every time you just produce a lot of irrelevancies and diversions. But precisely zero/zip/nada triumphs. After 30 years work, nothing of value has been produced.

My objection to Harry_Read_Me is simple. It shows that the general standard of IT ability in CRU is abyssmal. To even allow a dataset without a good description of what it is, where it came from. what the fields are, when we backed it up, who owns it and all the other stuff that made poor Harry’s life a misery into a data centre at all is pretty reprehensible.It does not speak well about the likely quality of any IT based (i.e all!) of the work of that department. If it has extremely sloppy processes for one piece of data, it is extremely unlikely that they have scrupulous processes for another. A houseproud person does not become a slattern overnight. Nor vice versa.

If the CRU sloppiness were just an isolated example, it might be overlooked or seen as a rogue bad apple in an otherwise ‘clean’ profession. But it doesn’t seem to be. Anybody with much professional IT experience is horrified by HRM. And many, like me, are happy to say so.

But AFAIK no climatologist has even turned a hair at what it shows. They are unconcerned about the amateurism and shoddiness it shows. I guess they just see it all as normal practice. Which reinforces my point.

‘You come across to me as a waterfall man whose only contribution to software development is to ensure that people write documents with the right titles and put them in the right coloured folders. I understand there were a lot of them around in the 70s’
‘
No idea what a ‘waterfall man’ is , so I’ll (as usual) assume that you are paying me a compliment. But my IT career didn’t really begin until early 1980 so I plead not guilty.

But if you mean that I believe that to do professional iT you need to get well-organised, approach your tasks in a logical fashion, adopt standard processes so that they become instinctive and exude a professional approach in all of it, then I plead 100% guilty. I’ve spent too many sleepless nights getting big and complex systems back on the road when some person or some combination of people have failed in one or more of these areas.

And I’m sure that you have followed the recent events at RBS with interest. A classic case of forgetting to get the basics of IT right. The code being executed may have been flawless, but it was working on the wrong thing and it seems a crucial control file was corrupted. And with widespread unhappy consequences.

I’d hope that ‘professional climatologists’ who all use IT as one of their very important tools would wish to apply the highest standards to that aspect of their work. Sadly it seems that they don’t even know they have got a problem, let alone be trying to fix it.

The Greenhouse Effect is about average temperature and is not about increasing the temperature. To say planet earth is warming is not accurate.

The Earth with it’s atmosphere has a higher average temperature than the Moon. But the Earth is obvious not warmer than the Moon. Rather the Moon can be colder than Earth. The night side of the Moon reaches around -170 C. And during day time the Moon can reach about 120 C.

The coldest the earth ever reached is −89.2 °C, and warmest the sun warms the ground on earth is around 80C. And the ground always warmer than the air.
Earth never reaches the extreme heat or cold of the Moon.
The coldest temperature ever reached was in polar region, and the polar are a relatively small and unique area of Earth and if compared apples to apples, the Moon’s polar region can get much colder the -170 C, -240 C.

If consider just temperate and tropical regions which are 90% of surface area of the planet the temperature extremes are surface [ground] temperature of 80 C and about -60 C. And so Moon is about 40 C hotter and 110 C colder. So the Average temperature of the Earth is much warmer than the Moon, mainly because the Moon gets much cooler than Earth.
So the atmosphere and greenhouse effect on Earth actually causes the cooler high temperatures and much warmer low temperatures.

So the greenhouse effect on Earth is not at all similar our sister planet, Venus, nor is there any reason to assume adding to this greenhouse effect
will cause the surface of Earth to become hotter. Whereas it’s possible it could cause earth’s lower temperatures to rise.

Btw, the high or very temperatures on the Moon [or even Mercury] or not particular difficult problem for person’s in spacesuits or in “houses”.
This is because these temperature very easy to control in vacuum conditions on the Moon, as compare being in such extreme hot or cold environments in a earth like atmosphere. One could be in -240 C in spacesuit, be too hot because heat generated from your body- a spacesuit would cool you down even in such cold conditions. Or a “house” would need almost no heating, and shade would provide all cooling you needed- though you can’t open the window .