“Again, the contention is that rising CO2 causes water vapor to rain out at such a rate as to make optical thickness of the atmosphere in the IR constant.”
1. What’s the predicted time delay between the rise and the rain.
2. Optical thickness in the IR is due to more than just C02.
3. Mechanism please
Hey Tony,
“History shows us they had little long term impact…”
____
I would disagree with this assessment, especially for the really big volcanoes, but really the latest study is not about long-term impacts of mega-volcanoes but about short-term “hiatus” related impacts of a series of moderate volcanoes. What I think we’ll see (in fact, I’m pretty sure of it) is a paper later on this year giving a pretty good summary of natural variability that led to the “hiatus” in atmospheric temperature increases and their relative contributions:
Something roughly like:
Negative IPO – 70%
Increased Volcanic aerosols – 20%
Lower net TSI – 10%
But going back to volcanoes, you still are seriously misinformed about how important the very active volcanic period of 1225-1275 was as a first big dent in the MWP as it relates to ocean heat content. It did not “cause” the LIA, as indeed, you know the LIA was quite variable, but it made a serious dent in global ocean heat content, and thus, was the doorway to the LIA cooling period that followed.
Here’s the last thousand years of IPWP ocean heat content with large volcanoes or active volcanic periods highlighted in green:
Cheers!
I see I got my punch line messed up: If not for the CO2 yatta yatta yatta..
Anyway Tony, as you often do, you cause me to wonder. What were the contemporary scientists thinking during the LIA, about the cause for the cold? Were the warmists talking about ballcanos and heat hiding in the deep ocean abysses?
TSI is heading lower – as is the IPO. The latter is at a 1000 year El Nino high bias.
I was wondering, Dr Curry, if you do any work for any renewable related industries or is only fossil fuel related industries?
rgates
I can only go by the observations and crop records rather than models, and whilst there was undoubtedly a cold period in the 1200’s it then recovered for a very long period
Anyway, IF the LIA was caused by volcanos that would mean temperatures would have been very much warmer without them and we can stop worrying about todays modest temperatures.
I think we have far more important things to worry about unconnected with climate.
tonyb
don
In the 1200’s they mostly thought it was the work of god or satan.
tonyb
now ask me why we sometimes used fine mesh on stealth designs
Be careful gatesy, if they find out back at climate dogma HQ that you are talking about the MWP, you will be severely reprimanded and sent to re-indoctrination camp. You know what that’s like.
Little has changed.
Statement in Science Magazine for November 19, 2014 about missing heat: “But recent research suggests that Earth is still taking in more energy from the sun than it’s letting out, to the tune of almost a 60-watt light bulb’s worth for every 100 square meters.” Similar statements are made by Trenberth and others.
Miskolczi is saying that this is nonsense, that radiation must balance at the top of the atmosphere.
If greenhouse gas concentrations fall, the tropopause will be lower and, for a fixed adiabatic lapse rate, the surface temperature will fall. Hence there is a greenhouse effect at the surface which is not sen from space.
When the value depends significantly on all three spatial coordinates and on time both due to short term variability and the trend being studied, the number of measurements needs to be very large even assuming that there are no systematic trends from the methods used as well as good metadata on coordinates and timing. Poor resolution of the data adds significantly to the difficulty in determining the field values well enough for the estimation of the trend.
Thanks david,
In some sense if we had to do it over again, the story of C02 and how it operates ought to have been carried by engineers to the public. Engineers, say in optics and sensors or the military, have to make things that work. To do this they build things in accordance with accepted and functioning science. That avoids an appeal to “consensus” and rather rests the case on science that actually forms the foundation of working things.
In other words, skeptics can theoretically doubt the science of C02, however if they wanted to build a working thing they would have to accept it.
I know why, Mosh. But I am not at liberty to tell what I know.
“Is that accurate, Judith?”
Unless some one is questioning whether she is prostating her scientific opinion for personal profit I suggest it is none of your business how much she makes. Although there some issues I might disagree with her on, her integrity is not one of them
No pHoney pH Data,
Just pHoney Solar pHysics
The oceans warm…when they don’t cool. Sea levels have been rising…since the late 1700s this time around. CO2 causes a straightforward greenhouse effect…in glass receptacles. Global warming is irreversible…it’s just those fly-by-night natural forcings that make it seem reversible.
More awards for Ms Flam of Caltech please. She’s uncovered two decades of standard climate propaganda saturation. You never know, we might have missed it.
Don
If the volcano theory is right I think we can look on our entire climate history as being one long MWP only interrupted at times by inconvenient emissions.
Tonyb
smh indeed.
Whenever I write a paper advocate the use of logic and intelligence I like to throw in a stray non sequitur here and there just to keep people on their toes!
