353 replies to this topic

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

So all I have done is I've used sunspot counts to be analagous to incoming energy (the hose filling up the bucket) and allowed such energy to stay a little (the water in the bucket) by restricting the size of the leak. When I added the volcanoes, all I did is I increased the size the of the leak proportionally to the magnitude of the volcanic effect ala Chris' spreadsheet.

Edited by VillagePlank, 17 February 2009 - 08:10 .

[Captain_Bobski]

Iceberg, on 17 Feb 2009, 07:24 AM, said:

CB for the life of me I can't find the post up put up saying that the extra heat is in the air.(you made it yesterday), I was going to look at it and respond. Sorry probably an early morning moment.

Am I right in saying that we have a bucket half full with water with a drip-drip in and a drip drip out( A hole at the bottom), when solar is high etc the drip drip in is slight faster and the bucket fills a bit more than half way, when the drip drip in is lower i.e very low solar or lots of volcanos then the bucket starts to empty.

Replace the bucket with the earth and the half full water with a atmospheric heat content.

Simple I know but I am not very with it today.


Is the above a correct summery of the leaky interrigator and this is what VP has found could be responsible for recent warming ?.

Hi Iceberg

The post you're looking for is over in the Global Cooling thread, I believe. It sounds like you've got the basic gist of what I've been saying, yes.

I'd like to quickly point out that I am not trying to claim that this is precisely what's happening in the world today - what I am suggesting is that this could be an alternative explanation for 20th century warming, and that the only way to discount it is to examine it further and see whether or not it fits real world observations (which is, after all, at the very heart of science).

VP's kind assistance in this has shown graphically that, at least in principle, the leaky integrator is capable of generating realistic-looking results by using only sunspot data and volcanic data (no CO2 necessary!). Of course the figures (especially in terms of magnitude) may not be correct, and using only sunspots and volcanic data is a vast over-simplification, but it does show the basic concept very nicely.

Any thoughts?



CB

[Iceberg]

OK I am slowly getting there.

According to VP, the formula would by x = a + (d - b - c)

x = global temperature

a = global temperature - time T (what ever the interval is).

b = the size of the leak

c = the additon of leak caused by the a (the leaky interrigator bit ! )

d = the dripping tap

Surely AGW thoery reduces the size of b ?. hence how do you differentiate this when plotting temperature.? what you have in an in built AGW thoery ?.

Also Thanks for replying CB, My thoughts around this at 3.00am this morning where along the lines of.
If the extra temperature is in the air, then when the air goes back to neutral globally, surely the leaky interrogator has then lost all it's extra heat that it can put into the system ?. If this is the case then back in Jan when the global temperature was probably at it's lowest for a long time all the lag must have left the system ?.

[Captain_Bobski]

Nay problem, Iceberg

I understand what you're saying about AGW reducing b, and the thought had occurred to me a while back, but the point is that the leaky integrator can potentially explain warming without having to reduce b.

A fluctuating value of b would cause a similar effect if the inputs remained constant (and obviously it starts getting extremely complicated if you start having varying inputs and a varying b ).

I have started from the premise that CO2 increases have little to no effect on the value of b. With that starting point, is it possible to mimic real world observations with varying inputs? VP's work has shown that, in principle, it is possible to do so without invoking CO2's supposed effect.



CB

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Iceberg, on 17 Feb 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

Surely AGW thoery reduces the size of b ?. hence how do you differentiate this when plotting temperature.? what you have in an in built AGW thoery ?.

Yes, GHG's, under this model make the leak smaller. There is a premise, and I know we've all read about it, that GHG's although they make the leak smaller, the amount that CO2 affects the leak is so small, that it really doesn't disturb the overall trend. That's the idea, and I've in no way demonstrated anything either for CO2, or against CO2, simply that it is possible to arrive at the six nations with something looking like a rugby team without reference to CO2

Quote

If this is the case then back in Jan when the global temperature was probably at it's lowest for a long time all the lag must have left the system ?.

Yes, although I'm not sure all of the water would've drained out of the bucket, yet - in the grand scheme of things it hasn't been that cold, and neither has any cold we have had been that prolonged.

Extrapolating that, one could make a prediction and say that the bucket needs refilling again, and until it refills we should expected cooler climate - perhaps an extrapolation too far? - which means we need to hit a solar sunspot maximum for the refill before we could presume a warmer/warming climate again. If, and I really mean if that is the case we should not expect a warmer climate until the downslope after the next sunspot maximum, and possibly have to wait until we have another two sunspot maximums before we see any effect.

Anyway, under this model, I would expect the general trend to be gently downwards as the leak, well, er, leaks.

(Of course this lot is premise, conjecture, hypothesis, and a whole host of other things. What it is not, is a validated model!)

(The formula reuses 'x' so you need to add 'x' to the right hand side)

** EDIT: I should add that I am not married to this concept, particularly, apart from a curiosity, in the same way I would not get married to pocket bullets in a game of Texas Hold 'em **

Edited by VillagePlank, 17 February 2009 - 11:56 .

[Iceberg]

If I move on a bit then.

Currently the general theory is x = a + (d- without any c.

This I can understand and makes sense.

Volcanism will reduce the amount of energy from the sun reaching the earth so increases b (the leak).

A higher solar amount will increase the drip d.

All this I agree with.

However with c the leaky interrogator we are in effect creating energy within the earths climate. It can't be increasing d as this is a given from space. It could be decreasing b but the life of me I can't see how.
The 2 Year lag(which is currently accepted) is largely attributable to the oceans.

The problem I have is that you can't create energy so we can rule that out, but how can b be decreasing by the magnitude shown by the leaky int.?

It's a cool math model but when trying to related to global energy balances it just doesn't seem to make any sense.?

I am quite prepared that I am being very slow on this and might not understand it.

BTW this is interesting and valuable, if we rule out c as being the leaky int that occurs naturally then it makes perfect sense to replace this with GHG variations. with would effect b, (I think we agree on this but it's just the amount it effects b ! ).

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Iceberg, on 17 Feb 2009, 11:58 AM, said:

The 2 Year lag(which is currently accepted) is largely attributable to the oceans.

Well, that's essentially what is going on here, but, instead of a constant 2 year latency, I have varied the latency based on how warm it is at the time.

Edited by VillagePlank, 17 February 2009 - 12:03 .

[Iceberg]

VillagePlank, on 17 Feb 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

Yes, GHG's, under this model make the leak smaller. There is a premise, and I know we've all read about it, that GHG's although they make the leak smaller, the amount that CO2 affects the leak is so small, that it really doesn't disturb the overall trend. That's the idea, and I've in no way demonstrated anything either for CO2, or against CO2, simply that it is possible to arrive at the six nations with something looking like a rugby team without reference to CO2

Yes, although I'm not sure all of the water would've drained out of the bucket, yet - in the grand scheme of things it hasn't been that cold, and neither has any cold we have had been that prolonged.

VP we have reached a negative global temperature anomaly (several in fact according to the MSU), this would mean that the bucket has lost it's warming capability. Therefore the current rise we have seen in the last 12 months when Solar has been low and ENSO negative would be unexplainable ????.

Pure guess work though.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Iceberg, on 17 Feb 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

VP we have reached a negative global temperature anomaly (several in fact according to the MSU), this would mean that the bucket has lost it's warming capability. Therefore the current rise we have seen in the last 12 months when Solar has been low and ENSO negative would be unexplainable ????.

Let me try and put it another way ...

We have a bucket, it has a hose going in, constantly refilling with water, and it has a hole in bottom, letting water out.

This model contends that the hose going in is analagous to sunspot count, and the size of the hole in the bottom varies according to volcanic influence.

Therefore, if sunspot count is low (so less refilling is going on) then level of water in the bucket, regardless of the size of the leak is going to fall. Depending on the size of the leak depends on how quick it that level will fall.

So for instance if we have a relatively quiet volcanic period and low sunspot count you might expect the level, for instance, to stay the same. If you have a high volcanic period and a high sunspot count you might expect the level to stay the same. It is the proportional differences between the two that allow high sunspot counts from years back to still affect the level of the water, today.

If I get time, I'll try and show a more detailed walk-through, later.

[Captain_Bobski]

Iceberg, on 17 Feb 2009, 12:04 PM, said:

VP we have reached a negative global temperature anomaly (several in fact according to the MSU), this would mean that the bucket has lost it's warming capability. Therefore the current rise we have seen in the last 12 months when Solar has been low and ENSO negative would be unexplainable ????.

Pure guess work though.

What's the baseline for the temp anomaly? You're assuming that a negative anomaly automatically translates to the input being less than the output, but if the baseline is at a point where input exceeds output then even a negative anomaly will lead to the retention of some heat (albeit less heat than was retained during the baseline period).

I'm starting to see that this exercise is going to lead to precisely the same disagreement as AGW theory.

Skeptics like myself argue that CO2 has less effect on global temperatures than AGW theory states.

Effectively, AGW theory says that CO2 reduces the size of our leaky integrator hole, b.

My suggestion is that temps can be explained without CO2 reducing the size of the hole.

It's exactly the same argument as always - namely, how much of an effect does CO2 actually have?

The only difference is that, this time, we skeptics have graphs! (Artificial ones, I grant you!!)

Is there any way we can settle this fundamental issue?



CB

[Iceberg]

But where is the heat in the atmoshphere during a negative anomaly. ?
I agree that we can leave CO2 out for now. As that is a issue we have been over many times. With or with out the issue of CO2. As I previously state

"However with c the leaky interrogator we are in effect creating energy within the earths climate. It can't be increasing d as this is a given from space. It could be decreasing b but the life of me I can't see how.
The 2 Year lag(which is currently accepted) is largely attributable to the oceans."

I am still trying to fathom a mechinism for the leaky int to allow it to add energy to the system, particularly when the atmosphere doesn't have that energy i.e a negative anom, it can't just create it.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Iceberg, on 17 Feb 2009, 12:33 PM, said:

But where is the heat in the atmoshphere during a negative anomaly. ?
I agree that we can leave CO2 out for now. As that is a issue we have been over many times. With or with out the issue of CO2. As I previously state

"However with c the leaky interrogator we are in effect creating energy within the earths climate. It can't be increasing d as this is a given from space. It could be decreasing b but the life of me I can't see how.
The 2 Year lag(which is currently accepted) is largely attributable to the oceans."

I am still trying to fathom a mechinism for the leaky int to allow it to add energy to the system, particularly when the atmosphere doesn't have that energy i.e a negative anom, it can't just create it.

The graphs I've posted are simply the measure of how much water is in the bucket; the water comes from the hose in the top, and leaves via a leak in the bottom. It's not creating anything, and external 'things' are regulating the level of water.

Edited by VillagePlank, 17 February 2009 - 12:36 .

[Captain_Bobski]

Iceberg, on 17 Feb 2009, 12:33 PM, said:

But where is the heat in the atmoshphere during a negative anomaly. ?
I agree that we can leave CO2 out for now. As that is a issue we have been over many times. With or with out the issue of CO2. As I previously state

"However with c the leaky interrogator we are in effect creating energy within the earths climate. It can't be increasing d as this is a given from space. It could be decreasing b but the life of me I can't see how.
The 2 Year lag(which is currently accepted) is largely attributable to the oceans."

I am still trying to fathom a mechinism for the leaky int to allow it to add energy to the system, particularly when the atmosphere doesn't have that energy i.e a negative anom, it can't just create it.

You're focusing on the fact that it's a negative anomaly. It's only negative because of where we have chosen to place zero on the scale.

A negative anomaly on a 1961-1990 scale is going to be different from a negative anomaly on a 1971-2000 scale, but does that make the actual raw value different? No - it just means that it is comparatively low on one scale and comparatively lower on another scale.

If global average temperatures are relatively high - which they must still be or else we would all agree that we have been in a cooling phase - then the negative anomaly is meaningless. It's negative by comparison to a high baseline.

CB

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Captain_Bobski, on 17 Feb 2009, 12:52 PM, said:

You're focusing on the fact that it's a negative anomaly. It's only negative because of where we have chosen to place zero on the scale.

Yes, the negative anomaly, in the case of a LI, means that the level of the water is falling, nothing else; it certainly doesn't mean the bucket is empty.

[Iceberg]

Sorry VP, probably being dense here, but I though the level of water effected the leak or drip ?, this is the whole point of the leaky int and if the temperature is negative against a base/normal then it nolonger has an enhancing effect on global temperatures.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Iceberg, on 17 Feb 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

Sorry VP, probably being dense here, but I though the level of water effected the leak or drip ?, this is the whole point of the leaky int and if the temperature is negative against a base/normal then it nolonger has an enhancing effect on global temperatures.

Forget signs (+/-) the weight of the water in the bucket is proportional to how much water it leaks, yes; so as less water is added, the level of the water drops, and less water is 'leaked'

EDIT: If you go here, the second graph in that post shows what happens to the level of the water if all incoming water is switched off.

Edited by VillagePlank, 17 February 2009 - 13:00 .

[Iceberg]

I am getting confused, but for the record the msu baseline is 79 to 2000 hence the amount of stored heat in the atmosphere must have been below the 79 to 2000 average. ?.

[Boar Wrinklestorm]

Iceberg, on 17 Feb 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

I am getting confused, but for the record the msu baseline is 79 to 2000 hence the amount of stored heat in the atmosphere must have been below the 79 to 2000 average. ?.

Huh? What mean, where? The only means I've used is a CET anomaly against the mean of the entire CET set, and mean of monthly sunspot data to derive annual figures.

Edited by VillagePlank, 17 February 2009 - 13:02 .

[Captain_Bobski]

Iceberg, on 17 Feb 2009, 12:59 PM, said:

I am getting confused, but for the record the msu baseline is 79 to 2000 hence the amount of stored heat in the atmosphere must have been below the 79 to 2000 average. ?.

What was the Jan temparture anomaly compared to the 1880-1910 baseline?

CB

[Iceberg]

So are you using global temperatures or CET ?. Sorry I though you where using global.

Maybe I am not explaining myself probably, I am sure there will be a Eureka moment soon !.

CB said that the store of heat that the leaky int uses to cause it's effect on temperature was in the atmosphere, but if the atmosphere is negative then this store must be at least reduced to the baseline of the negative anom.

I think the problem comes when transfering the maths model to the real world, in a maths model the mechanism exist through creation in the real world we can judge their existance.