Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on The albedo of Earth by Steven Mosher

0
0

Danny

‘I know this is in the form of a question so apologies up front, but do you have specific recommendations?”

Google search brought this up:http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/05/mutually-assured-delusion-mad/
and brought a good strong giggle.

good question.

1. Danny shows he is interested in the answer, he even did some work
on his own.
2. He is not demanding proof, he is seeking a recommendation.
3. past experience with danny indicates that he reads thoughtfully,
acknowledges his knowledge gaps and seeks to fill them.


Comment on The albedo of Earth by kim

0
0

Hee Haw, or better, Seesaw. The hemispheres are teleconnected.
====================

Comment on The albedo of Earth by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

Danny, Okay. Is there a question?

Comment on The albedo of Earth by Willard

0
0

> I was offering a reductio ad absurdum.

It was absurd quite alright. Nevertheless my argument stands, and AK’s squirrels are inexistent. (The concept of inexistence may prove useful later on, in the response I owe you, Ordvic.)

This reductio only refutes the claim that climate models ought to model every single interaction between particles. Unless we can show that climate models are powered up to meet that requirement, say by showing that the MET Office is looking to do so, or that this requirement would be somehow conceptually compulsory, AK’s reductio fizzles, which means it would in fact be a caricature.

Two strawmen, one caricature, and two inexistent squirrels. AK must surely be joking.

A great day in ClimateBall.

Comment on The albedo of Earth by Mi Cro

0
0

kim commented

Hee Haw, or better, Seesaw. The hemispheres are teleconnected.

I’m voting they just have the same song book, and sometimes they sing in harmony.

Comment on The albedo of Earth by Mi Cro

0
0

…and Then There’s Physics commented

What is missing and why is it that few others seem to think that something crucial is missing?

What is missing is any sign that night time cooling has changed.
I can’t ascribe motives to others, but maybe no one else looked? I looked because I noticed how much temps dropped setting up my astrophotography rig.

Comment on The albedo of Earth by AK

0
0

This reductio only refutes the claim that climate models ought to model every single interaction between particles.

No it doesn’t. And I never made that claim. I said that it would be necessary to make the current paradigm work (which is why it won’t).

Comment on The albedo of Earth by kim

0
0

Yes, sometimes sublime and sometimes cacaphonious. Better, the everywhere cacaphony sometimes somewheres sounds sublime, and sometimes somewheres doesn’t.
==============


Comment on Week in review by johnB

0
0

I have been thinking about the diurnal asymmetry in the observed temperature record , and what could be causing it and the error in the models.
I think it could be possible that during the daytime, sunlight excited nitrogen
is creating a CO2 population inversion. The Excited daytime CO2 cannot absorb the ground based 15 um emissions.
If I am correct the blue sky IR spectrum should have both 9.6 and 10.6 um
lines present, and these could not come from a 14 um pumping source.
The models could be off, because CO2 indeed slows down exiting
IR photons, but mostly during the night.

Comment on The albedo of Earth by Danny Thomas

0
0

Capt.
(Bad form, sorry). I should have made a statement so will now. Re:”All the
simulations were integrated until quasi‐stable equilibrium
was reached, so the reduction in emitted longwave radiation
must be balanced by other radiative changes. These radiative
changes are largely from water vapor and cloud changes……”
According to the topic paper (not your offering) this seemed quite pertinent. We seem to have an SH energy imbalance so according to this “it must be balanced” based on the understanding that in physical systems equillibrium is expected. It seems to be expected to manifest in temperatures (oceans? as it’s currently not associated w/ ice), but alternatively upper level cloud cover could offset incoming IR also leading to balance, could it not?

Comment on The albedo of Earth by Willard

0
0

> I never made that claim. I said that it would be necessary to make the current paradigm work (which is why it won’t).

That AK never made the claim that climate models ought to model every single interaction between particles is irrelevant if he “only said” that the claim is necessary to make the paradigm work. Talk about squirrels.

What AK calls the “current paradigm” requires that we go against everything we know about computational complexity. The most plausible explanation of that fsct is that AK caricatures climate modeling.

AK has yet to clarify what he means by semantic paradigm.

Comment on The albedo of Earth by AK

0
0

AK has yet to clarify what he means by semantic paradigm.

Willard’s just trying to waste other people’s time.

Comment on The albedo of Earth by ...and Then There's Psychics

Comment on The albedo of Earth by Mi Cro

0
0

…and Then There’s Physics commented

There is a fundamental difference, though. WV is limited by the Classius Clapeyron relation. This really just depends on the temperature in the atmosphere. Of course, you’re right, that technically we could simply add WV until the atmosphere is saturated everywhere. This doesn’t appear to happen and I think the reason is that convection carries the WV vertically until it reachs an alititude where RH is close to 100%, then it condenses, forms clouds and precipitates. So, if the RH is approximately constant, then the amount of WV in the atmosphere will remain approximately constant. There is no fundamental reason why excess WV should be replaced after being precipitated.
CO2 is slightly different. We’re taking CO2 that has been buried for millions of years and releasing it into the atmosphere. This increases the amount of CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere/biosphere. The amount in the atmosphere is then set by the carbon cycle (Henry’s Law for the oceans). The only way to reduce this is for the CO2 to form calcium carbonate and precipiate to the ocean floor (I think), or to be buried as biological matter. This is a very slow process. Therefore, even though an individual CO2 molecule may only remain in the atmosphere for years, the time it will take for an increase atmospheric concentration to decrease is much much longer (centuries).

While I’ve not really looked at it this before, it seems WV is limited by the Classius Clapeyron relation with atm temp and Co2 is limited by Henry’s Law related to Ocean temps, right?
Rel humidity averaged ~70% in my data set, that sounds about like the right amount of WV left in the atm after night time cooling condenses out WV in excess of that amount.
And we know we emit more Co2 than what shows up in the atm concentration, and the images from that new satellite seems to show, well doesn’t seem to show any real human sources (that I noticed), that the big process looked distinctly not human.

Lastly, I don’t think the surface data show any sign of a loss of night time cooling.
Look, I may not know down to my bones like you do that Co2 has to cause warming, I know in my head it should, I know enough about EM fields to accept it, but I have enough lab experience, I like looking at stuff myself, and I’m well qualified in simulators and large amounts of data, this I can do competently, and in NCDC’s data there’s no sign of it. There is lots of other really large disturbances in the data, so sure you can write a model of how you think surface temps will (have?) evolved from Co2, and get a line that goes up, but tomorrow morning will be on average about the same temp as tomorrow to normal measurements, the average derivative of max temps is +/-0.0F, temp have gone up (and down), but night time cooling went up(down) with it.

This just shows why, which reminds me of your original comment

it’s not so much being underwhelmed by the paper itself (I agree with JCH, Graeme Stephens seems to be a very good researcher and this seems to be an impressive piece of work) as being underwhelmed by what some appear to be concluding. As I see it, the work has measured the albedo very accurately and has shown that there is a North-South symmetry. I don’t think that one can really make any strong conclusions with regards to cloud feedbacks as they are expected to be small anyway. There does appear to be an issue with climate models not capturing this symmetry and that this may have implications for the hydrological cycle (if they’re not getting the right distribution of clouds, they’re unlikely to properly represent changes in precipitation). So, this is certainly interesting, but I don’t really see how it implies anything all that significant with respect to how our climate will respond to changes in anthropogenic forcings.

I think there’s a lot in this paper that fits the data I have, and I see no reason CS is over ~1.1C, and from the surface data it seem it has to be lower still.

A couple of Nasa GCM review papers, at least one discusses large differences in the hydrological cycle (rain patterns).

http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2001/mconk/

http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/ppa/2002/mcgraw/

Comment on The albedo of Earth by c1ue

0
0

Mr. Istvan,
Thank you for the additional information.
Noting that the simulations are accurate for 1 week periods is similar to back-casting circuit level performance to the device level – it can work if you have a large enough library of circuits, but in practice this is impossible to do.
The reason is that the complexity of potential behavior – not necessarily at the number of devices level, but in the form of behavioral complexity in the way subthreshold currents or other non-transition related energy events wind up affecting behavior.
A couple of semiconductor related examples to illustrate this:
a) even as few as 10 years ago, the numbers of electrons passing through in a gate transition in a transistor were in the thousands. Modern transistors change state with as few as a dozen. The problem? 10 years ago, if one electron chose to quantum tunnel (and disappear), it would not affect operation of that transistor and transition whatsoever. However, if one of a dozen electrons chooses to do so, it does cause a transition failure – and while individual such events are rare, modern digital devices employ hundreds of millions of such transistors operating at gigahertz speeds – meaning we’re well over the threshold of where failures due to quantum effects are quite common. The above noted back-casting approach can never solve this issue as it is fundamentally chaotic.
b) A more common usage of very accurate Spice level modeling is the development of voltage and current reference circuits. Very low power battery operated devices require some form of check to ensure power supplies from the variable performance battery don’t affect key circuit components like the timing (phase locked loops, oscillators), the IO (analog to digital/digital to analog converters), amplifiers, etc. These circuits only function at the subthreshold level even though they are created using transistors.
The reason back-casting at the circuit level stopped being useful decades ago was simply that the library of expected circuit level behaviors was so large that there was no point anymore in not modeling the device level accurately enough that designers would not have to break out and simulate sub-circuits at behavior grids, plus there are many interactions between said subcircuits which could never be accurately handled.


Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Lucifer

0
0

‘Climate Change’ is not about science.

Margaret Thatcher and Maurice Strong ripped the issue away from scinec a long time ago.

Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by beththeserf

0
0

And down and down I go … under that ol’ back magic
called clouds.

Comment on The albedo of Earth by ...and Then There's Psychics

0
0
JC SNIP <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract" rel="nofollow">Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments</a> Geophysical Research Letters Volume 40, Issue 12, pages 3031–3035, 28 June 2013 <blockquote>Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.</blockquote>

Comment on The albedo of Earth by Mi Cro

0
0

…and Then There’s Physics

My point is simply that if you add extra WV (over and above what the atmosphere can hold at a given RH) it will precipitate out in a period of days or weeks.

As long as it stays under 95-100% RH it doesn’t have to go anywhere. As I mention in my previous post, this does happen on a nightly basis, and it resulting in a ~70% rel humidity my data say it is seems right.
And I know this influences high time cooling, and it has a much larger impact than a couple watt’s from Co2. Water and clouds have a 10 or 20 times that effect on nightly cooling.

Comment on The albedo of Earth by ...and Then There's Psychics

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images