Mr. Mosher,
I certainly can see how some measurements do occur – the question I would have is just how detailed and thorough said measurements are for the potential relevant space.
For SPICE, hundreds and thousands of test chips are regularly fabricated for each new process – each with thousands of specific test results to be gathered – the point of this process is to thoroughly explore all possible device behaviors and accurately gather data on expected performance.
With climate, it is far less clear that this type of granularity in data can be obtained. There is no control over the test area – thus data can only be gathered by what instrumentation is available and over what conditions actually occur, as opposed to a regimented exploration of the entire space.
Equally, the number of expected behaviors at the “circuit level” by which the limits of gathered data can be explored seems to me as an outsider to be relatively small. A large “circuit level” library is important because it forces a more thorough exploration of the capabilities and limits of what data has been gathered.
An example: it seems odd to me that such gross behaviors as hurricanes can’t be more accurately predicted. As a layman, it would seem that a hurricane is a function of systemic energy – much like the transition in a semiconductor transistor. If in fact there is sufficiently accurate data at the “device level” – in this case, the energy/humidity/whatever in the 1.4 km regions – then why is it that predictions of numbers of hurricanes is so poor? I can certainly see the timing being problematic as the locus of generation could be any cell in a given area with all the chaotic effects thereof, but the fact that a hurricane will occur would seem to be a much more predictable phenomenon. And if it isn’t – as it is now – doesn’t that speak to an insufficiency of data and/or a modeling architecture problem?
Comment on The albedo of Earth by c1ue
↧
↧
Comment on The albedo of Earth by ...and Then There's Psychics
Thanks Gary. Best reply on this stupid thread.
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Lucifer
I used to cringe when some friends would drag socialism into the discussion of climate change – I wanted to be scientific about the processes and ignore/rise above politics.
But then I did read about Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome and the founding of the IPCC, and yes, also Thatcher using the issue to bust the coal strike.
To be sure, Fourier Arrhenius, Callendar – lots of folks have advanced the understanding of GHGs and radiative balance.
But the exaggerations pushed by the IPCC and its syncophants is all political.
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by johanna
You can probably feel the difficulty of the whole situation. Time is short, uncertainty is high, and the stakes may be even higher. Competing business and political interests collide every day. The tensions run deep, driven by conflicting values and differing needs. This is the nature of the hard problems of our time: they are densely interconnected, emotionally-charged and complex.
————————————————
Nonsense.
This is typical of what passes for thought courtesy of those whose sense of history extends to the last Big Thing on Twitter.
Every era of human civilisation has had hard problems – in many cases much harder than the ones we face, buffered as we are by wealth and technology.
These people need to get over themselves.
↧
Comment on The albedo of Earth by ...and Then There's Physics
David in Tx,
Wrong. Only half of anthropogenic emissions remain in the atmosphere each year. The earth’s carbon sinks grow in capacity every year. If the emissions were to suddenly the carbon sinks would not stop they’d start sucking it back out at the same rate it was added in the past, shrinking every year.
Yes, that’s why I specifically said ocean/atmosphere/biosphere in my comment. Why not try reading what I actually write and thinking about it, rather than simply sucking something straight out of thin air?
Too bad you don’t actually know any of the physics implied by your handle you farking dumba$$.
Jeez, how do I respond to this without sinking down to your level? I don’t, I guess.
↧
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Lucifer
I don’t think you’re conceiving the use of the phrase.
The problem of predicting climate is wicked.
That is is not a statement that climate change, ‘ natural’ or ‘anthropogenic’,
is posing a problem, at least not one that hasn’t been experienced since life first began on this planet.
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Lucifer
The climate ‘stiuation’?
Perhaps global average temperature and its slow rise just aren’t that significant to climate?
Doesn’t seem so.
↧
Comment on The albedo of Earth by steven
ATTP, that paper regarding water vapor trends seems pretty old. I’m starting to think my reference is a little rusty and it is more recent than yours.
New Tab
As far as how water vapor can be increased through dynamics, just start moving the water around
New Tab
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Mark Silbert
Read what our Secretary of State just said about Climate Change:
Maybe Drs. Curry, Zimmerman, Webster, etal could post an open letter to President Obama signed by 47 (hopefully more) notable climate scientists explaining to him that the science is far from settled and that he needs to better understand how the scientific process works.
↧
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Lucifer
Carbon dioxide sinks are still growing rapidly
Ya – stands to reason – the rate at which CO2 exits the atmosphere is proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere:
It’s probably going where the CFCs are going –
to the deep ocean waters formed at the poles:
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by Mark Silbert
++++++++++++++
↧
Comment on The albedo of Earth by Steven Mosher
C1ue
Here is what you said
“For example, the 1.4 km square mentioned above: while that is what is used for the base device with the top level circuit being the entire climate – there are no actual measurements for inputs and outputs for any 1.4 km square area anywhere in the world.”
WRONG.
The data for temperature and pressure and windspeed for example come from 10s of thousands of point sources. soil moisture and other variables are area measures live real time..
Again, put your SPICE down and think kalman filter. I’m well aware of SPICE and the comparison you draw is inept.
↧
Comment on The albedo of Earth by steven
OK, that worked well. Let me try again,
http://water.columbia.edu/files/2011/11/Seager2005OceanHeat.pdf
↧
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by swood1000
Because of the stakes involved in the consequences of climate change, however, the debate has become increasingly politicized, in a way that threatens the very integrity of science. …Scientists can provide important information about what a particular problem is, but go astray when suggesting that such information dictates what policies ought to be promulgated to deal with the problem.
Reminds me of the resignation letter of Hal Lewis:
“How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. …Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.” https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/hal-lewis-resignation-letter-american-physical-society
and the comment of Richard Lindzen:“The field is corrupt, without any question. I would say most scientists don’t believe this and didn’t believe it 20 years ago. But the young scientists know they have trouble if they say it, and so they don’t.” http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/11/richard-lindzens-presentation-on-the-climate-hysteria/
Is this a real problem or not? If so, can progress be made without addressing it, and in what direction is the solution?
↧
Comment on The albedo of Earth by ...and Then There's Physics
Steven,
ATTP, that paper regarding water vapor trends seems pretty old. I’m starting to think my reference is a little rusty and it is more recent than yours.
Which reference?
↧
Comment on The albedo of Earth by steven
ATTP, this one:
↧
Comment on The albedo of Earth by kim
Sorry, Danny, I don’t have a reference. It makes biological and physical sense theoretically and is observed in the greening of the biome. Why shouldn’t known carbon sequestering feedbacks be enhanced and why shouldn’t unknown sequestering feedbacks be recruited as CO2 rises?
Questions, questions. One answer lies locked in all the sequestered carbonates and hydrocarbons.
Again, the higher the sensitivity the colder we’d now be without man’s effort. If climate has a high sensitivity to AnthroCO2 then the colder we’d now be without it. If man is puissant in this, then we’ve only about the capability of forestalling a little ice age. The magnitude of man’s effect pales in comparison to the magnitude of the next natural cooling.
==================
↧
↧
Comment on Adaptive problem solving: Integral approaches to climate change by R. Gates
Nice cherry pick on the the graph ATTP! The slowdown in the rise in tropospheric temperatures following the 1998 super El Nino is quite clear as are the causative dynamics of what has been going on with the IPO over many decades:
It is only through understanding the dynamics of what causes the variability in latent and sensible heat flux from ocean to atmosphere that one can attempt to intelligently talk about cycles of slower or accelerated latent and sensible heat flux from ocean to atmosphere. Prattling on about a pause or hiatus without putting it in full perspective (i.e. using the above graph) with the addition of looking at overall Earth climate system energy balances, i.e. this graph:
↧
Comment on The albedo of Earth by ...and Then There's Physics
Sorry, Danny, I don’t have a reference.
Yes, I’m not surprised. If you actually did a bit of research, you might discover that the airborne fraction has stayed reasonably constant at about 43%. Hence about 57% has been absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. However, our emissions have been increasing and hence the amount going into the oceans and biosphere (per year) has been increasing even though the fraction has not (or, at least, seems to have not increased).
↧
Comment on The albedo of Earth by Danny Thomas
ATTP,
Do you have one? I really prefer to read the papers. Even here, I find the contrary nature of interest. Kim’s comment makes sense in the increase in biomass. I’m not aware of research other than relates to increasing Ag production, but that might have to do with GM’s also. Since your offering indicates specific percentages I’d appreciate the references as always. I’m a relative rookie at this and trying to formulate a foundation. Thanks.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
