Typos: “Correct, above P=0.1 bar tropopause, photon emission takes over from convection since the atmosphere is too thin above P> milliseconds”
should be “Correct, above P=0.1 bar tropopause, photon emission from GHGs takes over from convection since the atmosphere is too thin above P < 0.1 bar to sustain convection"
tangentially related: California’s levees:
That’s great, timmy boy. Denizens can appreciate your teaching experience right there.
Sorry, this is OT, but very important considering the timing WRT Paris and who wrote it. It looks really convenient for the warmistas. From the article:
Layzej writes with news carried by The Guardian about a report published by the Global Perspectives & Solutions division of Citibank (America’s third-largest bank) examining the costs and benefits of a low-carbon future. The report examined two hypothetical futures: one “business as usual,” and the other (the “Action” scenario) which includes an aggressive move to reduce energy use and carbon emission. From the article:
“One of the most interesting findings in the report is that the investment costs for the two scenarios are almost identical. In fact, because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario. Coupled with the fact the total spend is similar under both action and inaction, yet the potential liabilities of inaction are enormous, it is hard to argue against a path of action.”
But there will be winners and losers, says the report: “The biggest loser stands to be the coal industry, where we estimate cumulative spend under our Action scenario could be $11.6 trillion less than in our Inaction scenario over the next quarter century, with renewables, wind and nuclear (as well as energy efficiency) the main beneficiaries.”
blueice2hotsea | September 1, 2015 at 5:25 pm |
hockeyschtick
Can you either correct or affirm the following:
1. Collisions delay photon emission
2. Fewer collisions occur at low density, low temp. altitudes.
3. Vertical convection lofts CO2 to emission height
4. Convection is a sloooow ride, i.e. >> milliseconds
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/7845/2010/acp-10-7845-2010.pdf
Average convection velocity is 0.5-0.7 m/s.
The thermal stays coherent for about 4 km. So convection is a hour and a half to two hour ride into the sky.
It is like parachuting – but much slower and in the wrong direction.
Joseph,
From THE source: “Whenever there is an extreme weather event, such as a flood or drought, people ask whether that event was caused by global warming. Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question. Weather is highly variable and extreme weather events have always happened.”
So I think the answer (to this point in time) is ‘observation’…….to this question ” So where is this research that finds that climate change will moderate extreme weather events?”……..or to be more accurate since observation, so far, does not show an increase in extreme weather (yet?) then it’s equally plausible that it may moderate vs. increasing. After all, temps have been rising, correct?
The quote goes further: “Detecting trends takes time, particularly when observational records are rare or even missing in certain regions . An increase in extreme weatheris expected with global warming because rising temperatures affect weather parameters in several ways. (My words…..no detail as to how they’ve changed). Changes in the frequency (My words……in some cases, IE hurricanes, decreased recently but not much of a net change historically) of extreme events coinciding with global warming have already been observed, and there is increasing evidence that some of these changes are caused by the impacts of human activities on the climate.”
It’s interesting that in one paragraph it’s stated that weather is variable, but in another they’re relying on ‘coincidental’ evidence.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm
TE, as Emanuel has shown, for hurricanes the temperature differential that matters is between the sea-surface temperature and the storm outflow, and this gives an upper bound to hurricane intensity. Warming the SST raises this upper bound, and this makes sense because the latent heat available increases with the sea-surface temperature, and more energy leads to stronger winds. It is fairly clear that the strongest storms occur over warmer waters.
or to be more accurate since observation, so far, does not show an increase in extreme weather (yet?) then it’s equally plausible that it may moderate vs. increasing. After all, temps have been rising, correct?
I asked for the scientific research that indicates that climate change will lead to a moderation of extreme weather events, not your opinion, Danny.
“Average convection velocity is 0.5-0.7 m/s.
The thermal stays coherent for about 4 km. So convection is a hour and a half to two hour ride into the sky.”
Thanks for that reference too PA! I’m going to use that extensively as well.
Thus, convection can easily dominate & overcome any alleged “radiative heat trapping” or milliseconds of radiative delay by GHGs during the 12 hour night.
Joseph,
And I provided that source from the lords of climate…..SKS, Joseph.
Or did ya miss the link, Joseph?
If more extreme events aren’t occurring (observation?), then how would you describe it, Joseph?
Sks indicates they ‘expect to see it’, but even they didn’t come out and say they do, Joseph.
HS is in this oddly self-contradictory position of saying that the ERL is important to determine the temperature, but that the radiative effect of gases isn’t important. That logic will take some untangling.
Quantifying measures of certainty in terms such as “95%+ certain” (which the IPCC defines as “virtually certain” or “extremely likely) is meaningless. it is assigning a statistical likelihood on subjective measures that are at best consensus show of hands, i.e., “beliefs.” It is no different than saying 95%+ of practicing Christians believe that Jesus was the son of the supreme god and was resurrected in order to save you from your sins. In both cases you can say it because it is merely a belief but there is no tangible basis to say that it can be demonstrated or proven as fact.
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
I think that Jerry Sandusky’s character has been defamed here.
Its intution
OT but interesting.
The geniuses who run the US government, just as certain of globalclimatewarmingchange as the IPCC, have allowed the number of US ice breakers to fall to…2.
The Soviets, sorry, fascist Russians, have 41, with 11 more in the pipeline. And are “making a play” for the Arctic.
But don’t worry, the acolytes of the religion of the imminent ice free Arctic have placed orders for more ice breakers.
Due in 2020.
@JimD: “HS is in this oddly self-contradictory position of saying that the ERL is important to determine the temperature, but that the radiative effect of gases isn’t important.”
Not even wrong.
The ERL is determined by the center of mass and radiative equilibrium with that huge yellow ball in the sky, NOT GHGs!
Arrhenius-believers have confused the cause (gravito-thermal) with the effect (IR absorption/emission from GHGs). The only “radiative forcing” is from the one and only energy source the 5800K SOLAR blackbody, not the wimpy 193K or -80C CO2 wannabe “partial blackbody.”
“That logic will take some untangling.”
No doubt, for you.
Assistance here in my new post today incorporating PA’s OLR figure above. Thanks PA!
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-effective-radiating-level-erl-is.html
@PA; “the ocean has 1100 times the thermal inertia of the atmosphere.”
i.e. 1100X the heat capacity of one atmosphere. That means the oceans could swallow ALL of the heat in our atmosphere 1100 TIMES OVER before even warming a fraction of ONE degree.
Sun heats oceans, oceans heat atmosphere, atmosphere cools Earth to space. The tail does not wag the dog.
In addition, even if 15 micron IR could penetrate the oceans (it cannot penetrate water beyond it’s wavelength of 15 microns), radiation from the GHG -18C partial BB to the true BB ocean at ~4C cannot warm the warmer BB at all!
Arrhenius-CAGW-believers demolished yet again.
timg56
Surely you must see what Ryan is doing.
The goal of science is understanding and prediction
and the measure of understanding is skill in prediction.
and its important that people be able to audit or examine
the basis of your understanding, and to check your predictions.
How does one build understanding?
Its a good thing to have data.
Its a good thing to have some sort of theory, some sort of way
of computing consequences for your understanding.
1. Ryan throws out data. it’s no good.
2. Ryan throws out models, there no good.
3. Ryan then makes a prediction, based on what?
We don’t know what data he accepts and why. If we did know the data we could question his prediction without even waiting.
We dont know his method for calculating consequences. if
we did we could rule it out or decide it may be plausible.
What you have instead is someone using his expertise to get you to trust him. Hmm. homey dont play that game
TE, as Emanuel has shown, for hurricanes the temperature differential that matters is between the sea-surface temperature and the storm outflow, and this gives an upper bound to hurricane intensity.
Which is what I said – it is the gradient, not the absolute level that matters.
Unfortunately for the theory, the accumulated cyclone energy doesn’t indicate a rise.
“The goal of science is understanding and prediction”
Yer a funny guy.
