The cycle prior to 1910 was much weaker than the one prior to 1940. What are you talking about?
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by thomaswfuller2
I’m not asking if they’re right or wrong. Are they confident?
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by bob droege
But you were just saying “As a result, manmade global warming is not supported by the data.”
Which I interpret to mean climate sensitivity to CO2 equals zero, so your estimate went from 0 to 1.3 in a matter of weeks, so it will only take a few more weeks to get to Hansen’s range.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
Jim D, saltwater freezes at about -2C leaving nearly fresh ice and denser salt water to sink by convection downward. About an area the size of Australia forms and melts every season in the Antarctic which drives the southern portion of the Thermohaline deep ocean circulation. The average rate of the thermohaline circulation is around 10cm per second. That would put the travel time from pole to pole in the 60.9 year ballpark. The lowest temperature in the depths of the ocean are in the 2 C range.
Since the Arctic and the Antarctic both contribute to the Thermohaline circulation, the changing rate of ice growth and melt change the Thermohaline flow. Kinda neat plumbing setup.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Pack_ice_slow.gif/300px-Pack_ice_slow.gif
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by ozzieostrich
R. Gates
It appears we are in agreement.
As you point out, the GHGs impart no extra energy to the Earth, (and I agree it is an absurd notion.)
As you also point out, the insulating effect of the atmosphere reduces the efficiency of the radiative transfer between the Earth and other bodies. I prefer the word “insulator” to the word “governor”, as the word “governor” implies control in both directions – as in decrease or increase temperature. We agree that increasing the temperature of the Earth by wrapping it in CO2 is absurd.
Now the insulating effect of the atmosphere “smooths” temperature excursions at the surface. As we see by comparison with the Moon, the presence of an atmosphere decreases maximum surface temperature (eg max 90 C on the Earth, >100C on the Moon), and also ensures that the minimum temperature on the Earth’s surface cannot decrease to that of the Moon.
Increasing the amount of CO2 to, say 100%, will merely serve to depress the maximum surface temperature of Earth even further, and prevent minimum nighttime surface temperature on Earth from falling as low as it does.
For anyone that does not believe this, consider the following -
1. The maximum radiative transfer of energy between bodies occurs in a vacuum.
2. All bodies above 0K emit electromagnetic radiation.
It follows than, that interposing anything at all between radiating bodies reduces reduces the efficiency of the radiative transfer of energy.
Inserting CO2 in the radiation path between the Earth and the Sun will lower, rather than raise the Earth’s temperature, obviously.
Given that the earth is still cooling (we agree) and that CO2 has at best an insulating effect (we agree), I cannot see how anybody can seriously discuss a “sensitivity” implying “warming” caused by “GHGs.”
Now there may be some remaining dispute between us, based on the assumption that the atmosphere somehow impedes total energy radiative transfer more in one direction than the other. Insulators work both ways as far as total energy transmission is concerned. Without going into details, total energy transmission imbalance leads rapidly to the construction of system which has an output greater than the input.
Thank you for your support.
Live well and prosper.
Mike Flynn
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
Jim D said, “Solar variations are too frequent to make it a sensible concept except over long term steps like the Maunder Minimum (which was much weaker as a forcing than doubling CO2.)” Solar is a weaker atmospheric forcing but a stronger oceanic forcing. There are several thermodynamic boundary layers that have to be consider in the ocean atmospheric system and each have different sensitivities to different forcing. The Earth is not a billiard ball.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by sunshinehours1
” OK, I should have said since 1958 the sunspot numbers have been decreasing.”
DUH … it had the highest peak.
But no 30 year period since 1900 has had a lower average SSN.
SSN had nothing to with 1910 to 1944 warming.
However, 1980 to 1998 had the highest lows in 150 years.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Girma
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by WebHubTelescope
What is obvious is that the oceans are a huge heat sink. The thermal transient is close to the characteristic Fick’s growth law.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by sunshinehours1
Jim D, there was nothing special about 1910 to 1944 in terms of SSN unless low SSN causes warming.
Even the 1938 July peak was very short ( 165.3 ) most months were much much lower.
Starting around the late 70s SSN wast well above 100 for years.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Girma
Does not the GMT due to the ENSO oscillate about the smoothed GMT curve?
Does not the GMT due to ocean cycles oscillate about the long term trend curve?
The long term trend curve is almost a straight line.
As a result, does not this mean that there is little acceleration in the global warming rate after mid 20th century compared to that before it?
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
Actually, governor is a better term than insulator. Adding CO2 would raise the average radiant layer, that is insulation. Then changing available energy would also raise (lower) the average radiant layer. Since the relative velocity of the upper troposphere changes with altitude with respect to the lower layers, this “governs” the rate of heat loss. In order for CO2 to increase the average surface temperature it would have to increase the average temperature of the troposphere above the average radiant layer. Since that layer is in chaotic motion with vorticies and jet stream wandering, CO2 cannot “charge” the upper troposphere as required to obtain the full estimated climate forcing.
Kinda makes the modeling a bit complicated.
Then you toss in the changing atmospheric chemistry with water vapor reacting with ozone and that reacting with CO2 and the other trace gases in a region with various photon energies, electron flow and magnetic flux, things can get weird in a hurry. Ever wonder why the Antarctic CO2 concentration is lower and more stable than the rest of the atmosphere? Might have something to do with the magnetic “true” north pole being in the Antarctic.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Jim D
If you don’t like sunspot numbers you can look at the TSI reconstruction on your climate4you link below. It shows TSI rising after 1910.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
You still Ficking around with diffusion?
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by sunshinehours1
jim2, February, March, April 1878 had a huge warm spike.
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hadcrut3gl_feb.png
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hadcrut3gl_mar.png
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hadcrut3gl_apr.png
Feb/Mar 1878 ( and probably Apr) were warmer or as warm as Feb/Mar 2011 and 2012.
It appears in the top graph from tide gauges here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/visual-depictions-of-sea-level-rise.html
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Terry Oldberg
NW (May 11, 2012 at 2:05 am):
Thank you for the stimulating comments. A prior PDF that is uninformative about the numerical value of the associated parameter is logically required in the circumstance that information about this value is not available. Generally and in the specific case of TECS, uninformative priors are of infinite number. When one of these priors (e.g., the ever popular uniform prior) is selected for use, a consequence is for Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction to be violated. In the argument that is made for the existence of a specified posterior PDF over TECS, the negated law plays the role of a false premise. As this premise is false, the existence of the specified posterior PDF is necessarily unproved. As the equilibrium temperature is unobservable, the notion of TECS is scientifically and logically nonsensical.
If, in addition to being uninformative, the prior PDF is unique, the existence of the posterior PDF is proved by Bayes’s theorem. There is a circumstance in which the prior is unique. It is manifested in a sequence of trials of an experiment. In a single trial, the relative frequency with which the experiment has a specified outcome is 0 or 1. In 2 trials, the relative frequency is 0 or 1/2 or 1. In N trials, the relative frequency is 0 or 1/N or 2/N or… or 1. Note that the relative frequency possibilities are equally spaced on the number line in the interval between 0 and 1.
Let N increase without limit. The relative frequency becomes known as the “limiting relative frequency.” The limiting relative frequency possibilities are evenly spaced on the interval between 0 and 1. Maximization of the missing information about the limiting relative frequency yields the conclusion that equal numerical values are assigned to the probabilities of the various limiting relative frequency possibilities. The probability density is the ratio of the probability value, namely 1/(N+1), to the distance between adjacent limiting relative frequency possibilities, namely 1/N. Thus, the probability density is uniform in the interval between 0 and 1 and equal to 1; otherwise, the probability density is nil. This phenomenon provides us with an exception to the rule that prior PDFs are of infinite number. This exception provides climatologists with a loophole that they could jump through enroute to logically sound models of the climate.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by hunter
Hansen and co. are moving on to paleoclimate because it helps them hide from the failures of their other predictions. Hansen has not done real science for decades, if one means data driven work. He has shoved, trimmed, hyped, bullied, told scary stories etc. to sell his apoclyptic vision. He has sold his revelation well,and trained his fellow believers to find support for the apocalypse. But it should not be confused with science as most people have meant science historically. Hansen’s apocalypse is revealed, just as John’s was in the last book of the bible. And just as with John’s revelation, many who believe Hanasen have seen the sign of the times and the portents of doom, and written nice sciencey papers and books to support their interpretations of hansen’s apocalypse. and just as when the biblical revelation declines to cooperate as the beleivers predicted, Hansen’s believers just rationalize the failure and move on to the next apocalyptic vision. That is the nature of revealed consensus, as opposed to scientific consensus.
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by Michael
The IPCC is a small bureaucracy in place to put together summary reports of existing scientific research.
All the scientific research is carried by individuals and teams of scientists working at a plethora of institutions and bodies around the world.
The IPCC commissions, requests or carries out ZERO research.
Typical climate ‘skeptics’ – get it all wrong.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by pokerguy
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
R. Frost (of course)
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Philip
<a href="http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/esubmissions/Climate.sensitivity.20.2.12.pdf" rel="nofollow">Another recent paper on sensitivity</a>,
with one calculation having it as an increasing scaling function of time scale, with feedback factor varying between 0.3 and 20. Temperature series also show 1/f scaling behaviour, not generally reproduced by GCMs. As far as I know, there are no satisfying explanations, either for the scaling in nature or the lack of it in GCMs. Anyone know different? Also well-known (?) that such scaling can be modelled by a handful of AR1 processes, with power related hierarchically. Anyone have any ideas about the physics behind such a model?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
