JCH disinforms about me, probably ignorantly. I’ve never thought heat could come exploding out of the deep; it will seep out when the surfaces cool enough. Please excuse ‘seep’. It went with ‘deep’.
================
Comment on Blog discussions by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by swood1000
ATTP –
Maybe you should try reading this.
But according to the study, “Details of the processes driving this change, however, remain largely elusive, hampering our ability to predict the future behaviour of this and similar systems.” http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/1543/2013/tc-7-1543-2013.html
With regard to basal melt, the key point is
So 100 metres per year from the ocean verses 6.3 millimetres per year from the geothermal heat.
The processes driving the “100 meters per year” remain “largly elusive.” The 6.3 was for areas having a geothermal flux of 130 mW/m2. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070/F3.medium.gif But the study said that some areas exceed 200 mW/m2.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by micro6500
popesclimatetheory commented
<blockquote>All the water makes a difference.
The Set Point Temperature that Polar Oceans freeze and thaw is the most important. That does change the area of water that is exposed to the atmosphere rapidly in response to what ever causes warming or cooling. That does change clouds and rain and snow immediately, as needed to maintain the temperature. Ice builds up and advances and and melts and retreats slowly and acts as a huge capacitor, inductor, voltage system to smooth out the cycles.</blockquote>
I think the tropics are the boiling kettle, the source of the warm that spreads over much of the land, and the poles are the cold return and cooling regulation side.
We're bound by both ends. Co2 <strong>might</strong> tweak the profile between those two bounds, but I suspect it's completely possible that it doesn't alter those ends. The state change in water requires far more energy than a small increase in Co2 can add to the system, and there is a <strong>lot </strong>of water in the atm to work with.
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Danny Thomas
JimD,
Again, I can see that “some” of the warming is us (deforestation, UHI, and even CO2). But we’re not even recognizing that some .2C may (has been historically) natural right? We’re attributing it soley to GHG’s. Maybe it’s .2, .1, .3 but we don’t know for sure, correct? Most, okay I’ll give on that (leaving +/- .5 anthro, right?). Improved instrumentation (surely we couldn’t get .1/.2 prior to recent instrumentation). Sure it’s warming, but it has done so before so let’s give at least some attribution to a continuation to warming naturally, right?
The only way I can see that the AGW theory can be “proven” is to spend bazillions to reduce back to 280 ppm and what if warming still occurs? It’ll be “wow, it would have been hotter” and not “maybe we misunderstood GHg’s”. Middle ground is all I’m asking all while continuing research (which I’m all for for research’s sake). We don’t understand Albedo, Clouds, Oceans, Oceans/atmosphere, geography’s influence, Ice, TOA, the ‘pause’, and we know that our models are inaccurate. And we know folks who’re extremely concerned are willing to Jet around to talk about it. Actions are important if we’re really talking about a crisis, huh?
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by climatereason
Jimd
Firstly, you dismissed Danny’s comments about the predicted severe cooling of the 1970’s. Connelly et al failed to find it in the literature as it was a 1950 to 1970 concern that was in many of the climate books of the time from Budyko to lamb via the CIA report. Looking at 1970’s literature as Connelly did would yield few results as by then the fears had subsided.
As regards the warming, yes there has been ‘continuous ups’ before, the most notable of which was the widely recorded period from 1700 to 1740 . I have referenced you Phil jones ‘ paper on this in which he expressed surprise at the extent of natural variability.
The temperatures have been generally rising since 1700 and both this and the substantial ups and downs of the climate we can clearly see in the record need explaining without using co2
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Pat Cassen
Matthew -
<em> If the result you quote from Lu and Cai is accurate, then the result from Romps et al can not be accurate.</em>
We disagree. The change in energy that Romps et al. calculate for lightning is orders of magnitude smaller than the energies considered in Lu and Cai. That is why the lightning energy does not even appear in the equations of Lu and Cai. The two analyses are not contradictory.
<em>...half of me feels like I am a crank. He assured me that I am not a crank.</em>
I agree; you are not a crank. I applaud your effort to understand the issues at hand. But you are mistaken in the notion that Romps et al. constrains changes in net energy balance with warming.
Your assumptions about the relations between upward air flow rate, precipitation rate, and lightning production are exactly equivalent to assuming proportionality between changes in sensible heat transport and changes in lightning production; that is why you get 6% change in sensible heat per .5 degree C.
Convince me by writing down an equation. Understand Lu and Cai's eqns. 3 and 4. What would they look like if you added in Romps' lightning generation term? As Isaac Held told you, <a href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2014/11/15/52-warming-and-reduced-vertical-mass-exchange-in-the-troposphere/" rel="nofollow">"There is no requirement for an increase in the energy transport comparable to the increase in lightning."</a>
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
ATTP, “I’m suggesting that there isn’t much evidence for a significant sensitivity to other solar effects.”
You might want to expand your reading to include the impact of the Brewer-Dobson circulation, ENSO and SSW events on climate. There are decadal and longer trends that are just barely noticeable with the short satellite era data. Susan Solomon listed tropical ozone and water vapor, transported by the B-D pole ward as part of the cause of the pause and there are growing paleo references to ENSO and solar impact on climate. Since tropical ozone and water vapor transport are estimated to maintain the poles at temperatures on the order of 50 degrees warmer than other wise, this B-D transport would regulate the polar heat sinks A small changing in forcing in the tropics can have a much larger impact at the poles. That really shouldn’t be that hard to understand since one C degree change in the tropics has about 7Wm-2 influence versus 1 C degree change in the polar winter having about 1.5 Wm-2 influence. That makes GMST not as useful as one might think.
I believe the new Sherwood and Stevens et al. paper mentions something about the fungibility of dTs.
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by kim
Yeah, tony, it’s not just the millennial scale natural changes that are not yet understood, but also the centennial and decadal scale changes. Not to mention the regional variability; well, maybe we should if that helps explain why it’s so difficult to figure out the course of nature.
Danny, there’s never an excess of common sense speech, I’d even say that common sense speech is uncommon. Call in the rhetoricians, please.
===========
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Curious George
Don’t bother us with sigmas or other Greek letters. A confidence is simply a subjective measure of how confident you are. Consistent with the rest of climatology.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by kim
Gaia’s searching under the thunderbolts for her missing thermodynamics. No, silly, that’s where she lost them.
=======================
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Wagathon
<blockquote>Consensus is all-too-often created through censorship, suppression, greed, and opportunism. ~David French</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by ...and Then There's Physics
Capt,
You might want to expand your reading to include the impact of the Brewer-Dobson circulation, ENSO and SSW events on climate. There are decadal and longer trends that are just barely noticeable with the short satellite era data.
Again, why do you think I would dispute that?
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
SteveF, “Captain Dallas,
May I suggest a 2 year or 3 year centered moving average on both those trends?
Are you still in the Keys?”
Yep, still fishing in the Keys. I normally use a 27 month moving average to match the QBO and there is a 27 month lag in tropical SST response, but that is generally a manipulation too far for blogs. I was also too lazy to update the PMOD :(
ATTP, the reason I said that is that there is growing evidence and you said there is little to any evidence. “Well, expect that there is little evidence (if any) that these have some kind of significant impact on our climate.”
↧
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by ...and Then There's Physics
swood1000,
But according to the study, “Details of the processes driving this change, however, remain largely elusive, hampering our ability to predict the future behaviour of this and similar systems.”
Your link is describing basal melt of 10s of metres per year. Geothermal flux is contributing mm/year.
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Wagathon
Culturally, in the US, and in Los Angeles in particular, we often felt like wewere swimming against the stream, a feeling that became more acuteafter George Bush was re-elected in 2004. His re-election and thegeneral situation surrounding his presidency made the US less attractive,this combined with a disintegrating public sphere helped motivate us toconsider alternatives, and given our history, Germany was a natural one.
Feel the suffering of Socrates, Jesus and George Bush who refused to sign away America’s future at Kyoto. It was GW who stood up to the UN and the superstitious crowd and the purveyors of fear from the Left like that lone Chinaman facing the tanks in Tiananmen square with nothing but the courage in his heart to exercise free will, represent the unrepresented, and to oppose the mindless conformity of the Climatists that had been chosen at that point in time in the evolution of society to try to run the board.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Wagathon
Your tax dollars at work:
Happy World Meteorological Day!
Each year on March 23, the World Meteorological Organization, along with its 191 members–including NWS–and the worldwide meteorological community, celebrates World Meteorological Day, commemorating the formation of the WMO. This year’s theme is “Climate knowledge for climate action” highlighting both recent advances in climate science and the need for decisive measures to limit climate change. ~National Weather Service (NOAA)
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Jim D
We are doing the experiment now by increasing CO2 at much larger rates than in history and measuring how much the temperature is changing in response. Turns out to be rather as expected. There is no background warming according to common science. The changes are due to forcing. We can even see changes from solar cycles and volcanoes. The sun is now in a lull comparable with one in 1910. The main forcing difference is that now we have more CO2, so that is a clean comparison from the experiment in progress.
↧
↧
Comment on Blog discussions by Jim D
The latest rise in temperature is on top of an already exceptional peak in 1940. This rise to a max, then further rise is unique. Previous large rises have been from a minimum to a maximum.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by Jim D
It turns out that the models are quite good if you include anthropogenic forcing, but not so much if you don’t, so I would not discount the value in the sensitivities that they provide so easily. This is well known even from AR4.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: lopping off the fat tail by micro6500
Jim D commented
It turns out that the models are quite good if you include anthropogenic forcing, but not so much if you don’t, so I would not discount the value in the sensitivities that they provide so easily. This is well known even from AR4.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ipcc1.gif
This is graph is based on circular logic, it’s nonsense. And that’s assuming the black line is even close to correct.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
