Climateclass

Stickman learns global warming science

Presenting StickmanWhy Stickman?

He's easy to draw and most everyone can relate to him.

Stickman has gone through four classes now, with a fifth and sixth awaiting his

attention. So far, he started with the earth's

energy balance.

This was referred to as “basic physics”.

The class drawing basically looked like this:

Stickman decided to look around for other examples:

NASA www.eohandbook.com

www.sonoma.edu www.ossfoundation.edu

Okanigan U--Canada

meted.ucar.edu.jpeg

Schneider, Scientific American 1987

climateaudit.org (and IPCC4)

Where does the energy hitting the earth go?

“Simple physics” should tell us all these numbers are correct. However, inthe original presentation of global warming, there were “forcings”--additionsnecessary to push CO2 into being the culprit for warming. As far as Mr.Stickman can tell, back radiation is one such forcing. Mr. Stickman also notesthat the NASA diagram does not include back radiation. It does on some parts ofthe site. The one diagram may be ”net” or something. While all of this should be simple physics, it seems some of the numbers are not yet worked out fully.

http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/radiation_facts.html

Some argue that “back radiation” is not real and that only the net energy exchange counts. Stickman is leaning

toward that theory, although can understand why global warming believers want back radiation included as it makes

GHG extremely important in keeping the earth warm and then warmer.

This is ALL greenhouse gases, not just CO2.

Wow! Mr. Stickman's head is spinning! He thought this was “simple physics”.

Let's try another subject:Incoming solar radiation and the solar constant.

The solar constant is based on the surface irradiance of the sun, the radius of the sun and the average earth/sun distance. Thisis the amount of energy received at the top of the earth's atmosphere, perpendicular to the Sun's rays. It is generally accepted to be 1368 W/m2.

Next, albedo. Mr. Stickman likes the sound of that term! Actually, it means how much energy is reflected by the earth. Obviously, snow and ice are highly reflective. The more snow and ice, the more energy gets bounced back into space. Which is why there is such emphasis placed on the Arctic (and one would think Antarctic, though not so much) ice. If the ice melts, the earth retains moreenergy. Unless some other factor cancels this out. (Mr. Stickman did not actually learn that last statement in class, but Mr. Stickman realizes that climate is very complex and that other factors can and do rearrange the earth's energy budget.)

Another reflector of energy is desert sand. Large desert areas reflect heat back into the atmosphere. The oceans absorb heat.

This website has maps that illustrate albedo:

http://www.globalbedo.org/animation.php

Absorption bands: Water has the largest bands and overlays others, including CO2 in one band. CO2 has two peaks as does methane. Absorption bands are used to

identify what chemical element is absorbing radiation.

CO2 releases radiation to warm the air, but it is released in all directions, not just

downward. Perhaps later in the series, there will be an equation that calculates how much of the radiation is directed at the earth and

how much dissipates into the upper atmosphere and space. That would be very

helpful.

Snowball earth was another subject.Stickman was very disappointed to find that no one knows how it

started or why it started.

Glaciation was not total but there was a point at which glaciation became “inevitable”--basically a runaway cooling effect.Stickman wonders why scientists don't worry about another episode of runaway cooling episode. If they don't know what caused the first one, they obviously have no clue as to when or how it could happen again.

There were multiple theories on how we came out of snowball earth: volcanoes, GHG, fires, biomass

emitting methane, etc. Science does not seem to know how it happened so they can't explain that

warming and how we stopped being snowball earth. The ideas are not mutually exclusive, of course.

The Young Sun Paradox was quite interesting. Stickman had only heard of this in passing.

The sun is believed to have been 30% less radiant when the planet came into existence, yet earth was not a snowball. We know this because of waves, ripple marks, etc in rock dating back millions of years.

.

Many theories abound to explain this: GHG, ammonia (this one is mostly discredited), etc. The

GHG concentration would have had to be very, very high and evidence is lacking that this was true.

Stickman did find an interesting theory from the creationist camp: They maintain if we did not insist the earth was 4.5 billion years old,

the problem would not exist. Then there's no problem. Stickman notes that such a theory would require modification of much of physics to explain why the rocks appear much older, but it is atheory and one Stickman had also not heard before. (This was

not part of class—independent research.)

Ocean “acidification”

Stickman become furious when this term is used. It screams “I am so scientifically illiterate that I cannot tell an acid from a base”. While technically possible, if one defines the term as an increase in hydrogen ion concentration, the term is definitely alarmist. Stickman rejects arguments that this is not designed to frighten people. There is NO reason why the process cannot be described as “less alkali” other than that's not scary. It is absolutely correct and far more accurate. When Stickman hears this term, he immediately knows the person is not imparting science, but rather alarmism.(All arguments that this not alarmist are rejected. Unless someone can explain why the alarmist term “acidification” is more accurate than more alkali, Stickman rejects the term as alarmism designed to mislead.)

The ocean appears to be part of the system that regulates the temperature on earth. Nothing Stickman has seen so far leads to the conclusion that ocean warming is a bad thing.

The ocean becoming less basic may be hard on some marine life. Coral reefs are often said to be of major concern due to their composition The pH affects their ability to make

and maintain shells. Some also feel the temperature will harm the reefs if it increases. Some recent studies indicate

there are corals that survive in warmer water.

It's interesting to note that coral reefs have tremendous value as tourist attractions, meaning their decline would cost local economies. However, the climate change believers say thatthe travel modes of tourists are contributing to the death of the corals. Dilemma—it's much easier to convince people

to save the planet if there's an economic advantage. However, if the economic advantage contributes to the decline of that

which you want to save.....

Stickman would note that corals declining may simply be Darwinian. The corals are unable to adapt to a changing world. Economically, one might fear the end of the corals, but the world will continue on just as it always has. Will this make the planet better or worse? Only a psychic or a time machine can tell.

Back to class material!

The paleoclimate was interesting. The earth historically has had periods of warm and cold. As noted with the Young Sun Paradox, Earth was not frozenat first. Later, we had snowball earth and the again melting. That was on a millennial basis, not a century or two.

While not mentioned in class, there are reported periods of rapid climate change, some did occur. The Younger Dryas is one such event. There are multiple theories on causes of this change. Stickman believes this indicates that the “abrupt” changes we are told are occurring now are not unprecedented and may be due to natural causes.

Much of the paleo data comes from proxies. How well do these proxies work? It seems they may work about as well as climatemodels. When compared against each other, there can be widelyvarying results. The infamous hockey stick came from proxy data.Marcott made a similar graph by attaching instrumental recordsto proxy data.

Years ago, when Stickman was a wee lad, proxies gave us someidea of the climate past. They were at best rough estimations of the past. Stickman is unconvinced that use of proxies in temperature reconstructions is either desirable nor valid.

Proxies told of running water, CO2 in ice cores, creatures that arelong since extinct, etc. These were not used as a thermometer in calculations from an arbitrary mean in increments on .1 degrees. Stickman did find one study in the Alps on proxy accuracy, which was ongoing. Other than that, no attempts seem to be made to lookat current instrumental records versus proxies. We have manytree rings available and sediments, etc. It would be an easy thing to do.

An alarming realization occurred at this point. If we really only have rough approximations at this point, how accurate can predictions be? One idea seems to be if we put a bunch of said approximations together and average them, we will get something close to accurate. Stickman finds no justification for that theory however.

At one point, global warming advocates flattened the MWP and the LIA, making the “stick” much flatter than in the science ofthe past. Before global warming theory became an issue, the MWP and the LIA were believed to be worldwide and very real. Plus, the MWP was said to be warmer than now. The reverse seems to be what is taught now—that current warming is higher than the MWP.

Which brings us to another interesting idea. Proxies of many kinds are used, but most often, newspaper clippings, personal journals and similar documents are reject by those advocating the human induced global warming theory. Stickman wondered why that would be. Humans recording their experiences seems a reasonable proxy. Then Stickman realized, climate change alarmism has lead to widespread exaggeration and a “the means justifies the ends” mentality. It seems reasonable from that mentality to think that newspapers from the past might behave the same way and be as exaggerated as now. Time magazine posted the “Ice Age” cover in the 70's, there were reports of melting arctic ice in the early 1900s, etc. One might also note that many articles disagree with AGW and CAGW, so it often is stated that such sources are “not valid”. In the case of the media past, it seems all is presumed tainted as it is today.

Stickman is tired now. He will return later with morelearning about climate.