Wait a few years.
But one thing I’m (pretty) sure of, you’ll be there too. Maybe we’ll meet, and I’ll have a chance to laugh at you for your simple-minded naivete.
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by jim2
Joahua knows the science, therefore he denigrates Dr. Curry’s understanding of it. At this rate Josh will be President, or whatever, of the Royal Society by roughly next week. His brilliance is blinding! His wisdom spanning oceans. And his understanding of climate is rivaled by no one … well, except maybe Al Gore.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by JCH
Joshua – Where have you been? There has been an 18-year pause in gulagin’. Just wait a few years.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Gator
Good for the APS. Guess they could see through all the clap-trap, irrational, unscientific noise put out by the deniers.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Turbulent Eddie
APS is appealing to its own authority – I must be right, because I said it, didn’t I?
↧
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by ristvan
Climb down is apparently not possible for warmunists. Will you follow Lewis and Giaver’s examples, as it seems reform from within is not possible as Koonin apparently knew months ago given his WSJ op-ed?
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Turbulent Eddie
I dropped a long time membership in the American Meteorological Society when they felt compelled to advocate.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by John Carpenter
I’m a little surprised that so many APS members, upset with this latest statement, are just inclined to throw in the towel, take their ball and go home. That doesn’t strike me as a great way to fight back, seems more like quitting.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by curryja
AMS is a relative breath of fresh air in all this (well its a very low bar)
↧
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Danny Thomas
Gator,
Absolutely! Much better to fall back on:”scientific challenges remain to our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate changes”.
We can’t see, figure out, and have no idea what’s gonna happen.
Good choice!
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Turbulent Eddie
On Climate Change:
Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue that poses the risk of significant disruption around the globe.
Disruption?
Kind of a weak and obfuscatory term for an organization dedicated to clear physics.
Could be like a MadLibs fill in the blank for climate statement generators.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by mwgrant
Hi Peter,
I appreciate the the dob. The topic looks interesting but I suspect other know more than I do. At the present I have been keeping my mind busy and distracted looking at spatial correlation in USA temperatures–that is an easy comfort zone. I would be interested actively participating given my background in DA and RA from the point of view of stretching myself but could not carry that particular expertise [Pareto] to the table.
BTW I think that the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is another ‘old’ approach to look at. Back when fuzzy logic was finally taking root in the US there was an interesting fuzzy AHP briefly outlined by a beltway bandit. I’ve thought about that for years–particularly from the perspective of incorporating linguistic characterizations of parameters. That does not make it an ultimate tool but does suggest some utility as a tool to communicate about uncertainty in both the front end and back end of assessments.
Best regards,
Mike
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by beththeserf
Testing. Comment lost in space. (
↧
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by beththeserf
Hardly hints. Detailed analyses,at Climate Audit not refuted
by counter arguments.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Jeff Glassman
andrew adams, 4/8/15 @ 3:58 pm, posted:
Part I:
<i>But by definition the GHE is the response of the climate system to the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere. CO2 (and other GHGs) leading temperature, not the other way round.</i>
This explanation confuses the GHE with the IPCC climate model itself, colloquially the GCMs. With one exception, the climate models do make the GHGs lead temperature. That exception is that the GCMs apply the Clausius-Clapeyron equation to make water vapor increase following (lagging) increased surface temperature. In this way the GCMs have water vapor to amplify CO2-caused warming. That is necessary because as much as the GCMs over-estimate the presence of anthropogenic CO2, long-lived and accumulating, it isn't enough to cause the desired catastrophe. At this point, the GCMs increase clouds because clouds also produce a GHE, but the GCMs don't use the increased water vapor and clouds to increase cloud cover, thereby increasing cloud albedo, the mitigating reaction in nature.
The definition of the GHE is defined by IPCC as follows:
<i><b>Greenhouse effect</b></i> <i>Greenhouse gases effectively absorb thermal infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself due to the same gases, and by clouds. Atmospheric radiation is emitted to all sides, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system. This is called the greenhouse effect. Thermal infrared radiation in the troposphere is strongly coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere at the altitude at which it is emitted. In the troposphere, the temperature generally decreases with height. Effectively, infrared radiation emitted to space originates from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, –19°C, in balance with the net incoming solar radiation, whereas the Earth’s surface is kept at a much higher temperature of, on average, +14°C. An increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to an increased infrared opacity of the atmosphere, and therefore to an effective radiation into space from a higher altitude at a lower temperature. This causes a radiative forcing that leads to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, the so-called enhanced greenhouse effect.</i> AR4, Glossary, p. 946.
This appears to be good enough for government work. (1) The word <i>effectively</i> in the first sentence should be struck. (2) The notion that heat can be trapped is sure to give anyone versed in thermodynamics the heebie-jeebies. (Heat is thermal energy in transit. What is trapped is thermal energy.) (3) The vertical distributions of the trapped energy and temperature are irrelevant. The GCMs use the radiative forcing paradigm, well-represented by the Kiehl-Trenberth (1997) lumped parameter model. See AR4, FAQ 1.1. In this model, the atmosphere is a single node, meaning it has no thickness.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Jim D
You have to see it from the environmentalist perspective. If you see industry doing something to the environment, whether it is acid rain, ozone, methane or other things, you need to change policy to avoid that, because industries won’t do anything if left to themselves. You can’t separate environment from policy that easily.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Jeff Glassman
andrew adams, 4/8/15 @ 3:58 pm, cont.:
Part II.
So I don’t see how you can accept the existence of the GHE but dispute that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. Yes, that doesn’t mean that it can’t work the other way round as well – it’s uncontroversial that increasing temperatures in the past have resulted in increasing CO2 levels, mainly through outgassing from the oceans.
Only crackpots and a few of their followers dispute that increasing GHGs would increase the surface temperature. What is disputed is the idea that man can measurably increase atmospheric CO2, or any other GHG. Add to that now the idea that outgassing accounts for increasing atmospheric CO2. With respect to the ocean, CO2 flows in and out continuously according to ocean circulations and the associated temperature changes. The dominant current is the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC), aka the misnamed ThermoHaline Circulation (THC) (it ought to be thermo-haline-carbon), and popularly the Great Conveyor Belt. The major effects of this circulation are two-fold. First, CO2 outgases where cold water from the ocean depths surfaces at the equator to absorb solar radiation. Second, the ocean absorbs CO2 on average all across the lower density surface as the waters cool by radiation to space on their return to the poles. This circulation is about 15 Sverdrup (1 Sv = 1 km^3/sec), 15 times the combined total flow of all the rivers of the world (about 1 Sv). Coincidentally, the carbon flux from the oceans alone is also about 15 times man’s present emissions.
But currently the oceans are acting as a net sink for CO2, which is why only half of our emissions are remaining in the atmosphere.
If the oceans are effectively warming, they are a net source of CO2, and if they are cooling, a net sink. Half of man’s emissions no more remain in the atmosphere than do half the emissions from all the other sources, which are 33 times as great. See AR4, Figure 7.3, p. 515, where IPCC omitted 270 GtC/yr from leaf water (TAR, ¶3.2.2.1, p. 191). Natural CO2, being a lighter mix of isotopes, is likely slightly less soluble than anthropogenic CO2, but regardless, the solubility coefficients cannot be set to cause what the GCMs do: nearly 100% of natural CO2 is reabsorbed on the surface while only about half the ACO2 is.
↧
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by Jeff Glassman
andrew adams, 4/8/15 @ 3:58 pm, cont.:
Part III.
And WRT to the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, individual molecules of CO2 may have a relatively short residence time due to the carbon cycle but the overall level remains fairly constant and does have a residence time of centuries.
This is a wild speculation actually found on the Internet. However, no such model for individual molecules exists. Residence time is a bulk or statistical relationship relating to the volume of reservoirs and the mass flow between them:
Turnover time (T) (also called global atmospheric lifetime) is the ratio of the mass M of a reservoir (e.g., a gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and the total rate of removal S from the reservoir: T = M / S. For each removal process, separate turnover times can be defined. In soil carbon biology, this is referred to as Mean Residence Time. AR4, Glossary, p. 948.
This is IPCC’s formula analogous to filling leaky buckets modeled in first year, high school physics. IPCC ignores its formula in the main body of its Assessment Reports. The formula puts the CO2 residence time as low as 1.5 years with leaf water and 3.2 years without, and it has nothing to do with individual molecules.
Nor does residence time have anything to do with oceanographers’ imaginary bottleneck in the boundary layer, where CO2 waits thousands of years for deep ocean sequestration to make room in the surface layer, constrained by equilibrium carbonate equations. The surface of the ocean is no more in equilibrium than is the climate itself, and the equilibrium relations do not apply. GCMs force the atmosphere to be a reservoir for excess manmade CO2 (though, mysteriously, not natural CO2) when in fact the surface layer of the ocean easily holds any excess CO2, dissociated or gaseous, allowing Henry’s Law of Solubility (yet to be discovered by IPCC) to proceed apace.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Jim D
I think you haven’t fully understood the significance of the presence of an imbalance or a forcing that tends to increase it. You don’t need equilibrium to get the relevance of these concepts. The only connection to equilibrium is that is a special state with zero imbalance, which we are nowhere near at the moment.
↧
Comment on Draft APS Statement on Climate Change by matthewrmarler
Jeff Glassman: <i> APS is not here being the leading voice of anything, but a trailing (copycat) voice for a movement. It has provided neither authoritative information nor a link to such information, here on climate physics. </i>
Those strike me as fair statements.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
