Comments for Climate Etc.

So Jim, the several published papers I have shown you many times aren’t based on physics. How many times have you been shown those now? 5? 6? 8?

There is no internal variation on land, so if it is warming, it can only be from forcing, especially if it is warming more than the ocean and ahead of it.

So I didn’t show you published literature that stated the oceans wereleading the land? Is that what you are saying?

I don’t claim to understand China, nor do I need to to cite the above figures and make some calculations based on them.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:120/mean:240/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:120/mean:240

There is no internal variation on land, […]

Unproven, unprovable BS.

The land surface has a very low thermal inertia. As such it responds quickly to forcing changes and has little memory. This makes it fundamentally different from the ocean and a better gauge of forcing changes.

As such it responds quickly to forcing changes and has little memory.

A great deal of the “weather” that makes up “climate” involves both sea and land. Thus, the land has access to “memory” available in the sea. The distinction is completely artificial.

If you apply an external forcing to the land and ocean surface, the land responds earlier and more sharply. That is exactly what is happening in CRUTEM4 and HADSST3. It should be no surprise.

If you apply an external forcing to the land and ocean surface, the land responds earlier and more sharply.

Land temperatures are far more sensitive/driven by precipitation/evaporation which depends on evaporation over and transport from the sea. And with the sea, changes to global circulation patterns driven by internal variation are far more important than the tiny effect of changing greenhouse effect.

The land warms even faster when it is drier, and it is getting drier because the ocean is not keeping up, so that just enhances the difference.

[…]it is getting drier because the ocean is not keeping up […]

It is? Citations?

In ohio, there is a 20 – 30F difference in temperatures between cool dry air coming from Canada as opposed to hot humid coming up from the gulf of mexico.

Over land the humidity is not keeping up with Clausius-Clapeyron so the relative humidity is declining. This is likely because the moisture for land is mostly supplied by the now relatively cooler ocean. You can find RH trends on the internet. The effect should be noticeable by now.

For example, a desert warms faster than a swamp.

jacksmith4tx,

Maybe you underestimate the intelligence of the Chinese. They might realise that CO2 is a GoodThing(tm), and be going all out to produce lots of it, while laughing at silly “round-eyes”.

According to at least one paper, written by non Asians, the US ranks 9th in country IQ, along with Andorra, Australia, Latvia, etc. Darn.

Obviously, the Flynn effect –

“The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day.” – hasn’t had time to work its magic on the USA just yet.

You just have to have a good laugh sometimes, don’t you? Should Steven Mosher pay more attention to us Flynns?

How they do with pot holes, black ice, deer, traffic cops and detours?

Jim D,

If the RH is declining over the land, the obvious solution is to burn vast amounts of fossil fuel. The H2O resulting will boost the moisture content, and the CO2 content will assist more plants to grow.

As the deserts green, the land temperature will drop, as you pointed out. The greening is occurring as we speak, but we need more CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere.

Wouldn’t you agree that this is a Good Thing™?

Thanks, willy. That means a lot to me. I was just expanding on junior’s curt comment. Was that ‘hitching star to bandwagon’ part OK? When I wrote that, I was worried you might ding me.

It also cools faster, opposite what the effect of Co2 is reported to be.

Latest Images