“…we scientists really don’t know what climate is doing or will do! No one does.” ~Marcia Wyatt
Case closed.
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Lou Maytrees
kim – so the MWP and LIA ran into each other over a 900 year period (950 – 1850ad)) and according to you folks there was a swing of at least 2-3+* between the two. The MWP being 1-2+* above the average, the LIA being 1-2+* below the average. It only took a 5*C drop in temp to bring on the last Ice Age, so your conjecture is that a 40-60 or even 80% of that variation in climate temps does not show high sensitivity?
It took a 5* swing to give us an Ice Age but a 2, 3, or 4* temp swing as some AGWDenier sites claim happened in those MWP-LIA years is not high climate sensitivity?
You folks do live in a dream world.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by kim
I meant ‘ductility’ not ‘tactility’. What were the forcings, young feller?
==============
↧
Comment on Hypocrisy at universities over oil company funding/divestment by jim2
Here’s one for Dr. Curry. What with the internet and all, terribly expensive text books should be a thing of the past, but …
from the article:
…
California State University at Fullerton brought a grievance against associate professor Alain Bourget recently. It wasn’t for poor results or questionable conduct — it happened because Bourget refused to assign a $180 textbook for his introductory linear algebra and differential equations course, instead using one that cost $75 and supplementing it with free online materials.
…
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by jim2
Any email written on a government computer and government-owned email system should never be considered private property of government-owned employees, national security cases excepted.
I’m not sure who they think they are.
↧
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Vaughan Pratt
@DP: The point is the computational mandate that temperature change is in response to the time-integral of the net forcing; not proportionately to the instantaneous value of the net forcing itself.
Dan, you continue to ignore the radiation from Earth to space. In equilibrium this equals the radiation that Earth absorbs from the Sun (the insolation net of the portion reflected back to space). An increase in CO2 reduces the former without changing the latter.
Now if the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere remained constant then you would be absolutely correct: heat would accumulate as the time integral of the forcing, exactly as you say.
What you’re neglecting is that this accumulated heat will raise the temperature of the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, so does the radiation to space until once again it equals the net insolation. This is a new equilibrium, one that is the result of the atmosphere’s improved thermal insulation.
This return to equilibrium at a higher temperature is what the high-falutin’ term “Planck feedback” refers to.
As a side note, the custom is to speak of the Planck feedback as warming the Earth’s surface. However the troposphere’s lapse rate remains (roughly) constant whence any warming of the surface heats the whole troposphere by the same amount. Now only about 6% of Earth’s radiation to space is directly from the surface; the remaining 94% is from every point of the atmosphere visible from space (so nothing from below clouds). The physics is therefore more clearly seen when the Planck feedback is described as warming not just the surface but the whole troposphere.
To see why this matters, a helpful analogy is a white cup filled with water. If you look straight down at it, the light you receive is the light reflected from the bottom of the cup. Now if you slowly add milk, you still see the same amount of light, but less of it comes from the bottom because some of it is reflected by the milk. As you continue to add milk, more of the reflected light comes from higher up in the liquid. By the time you have more milk than water, pretty much all the reflected light is from the top millimeter or so.
Rising levels of greenhouse gases (GHG’s) work the same way as rising levels of milk, with two important differences.
First, instead of reflected light the radiation to space is the thermal radiation from the greenhouse gas’s warmth.
Second, whereas milk’s albedo is always 1 (it reflects essentially all light), the troposphere is colder at higher altitudes. Hence as the upper troposphere contributes an increasingly greater share of the radiation to space with rising GHG’s, it does so less effectively because it is colder than the lower troposphere. Less heat therefore escapes to space, forcing the temperature of the whole troposphere to rise until once again the radiation to space equals the net insolation.
Once you see that the Planck feedback involves not only the surface but the whole troposphere, it becomes obvious why Angstrom’s saturation argument fails. Angstrom objected to Arrhenius’s quantitative account of the greenhouse effect on the ground that when CO2 reached saturation, understood as blocking 100% of the CO2-absorbing wavelengths from the surface to space, further CO2 could not increase the temperature, i.e. the Planck feedback would drop to zero. Angstrom’s mistake was to consider radiation only from the surface, ignoring the radiation from the rest of the troposphere. Even when all CO2-absorbing wavelengths from the surface and even the lower troposphere are blocked, the upper troposphere can continue to radiate to space, just as the surface of milk continues to look white even though no light is coming from lower down in the milk.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by kim
j2, they’ve never been touched! I can see why they’ve acquired an aura of invincibility. But Nature heeds not poor humans’ narratives.
Doomed. I’ve said for a long time we’ll eventually feel sorry for these government scientists, shackled to their grisly tasks, grimly silent, yeah, they are sullen.
==============
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by blouis79
Found a paper: Florides (2010) “Global warming: CO2 or Sun”
http://www.intechopen.com/download/pdf/12170
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by kim
The height of folly to hang momentous policy action on the state of our knowledge. Oh, well, they’ve been warned and don’t seem to care with the ring of power just so deliciously within apparent reach.
=======================
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by climatereason
Lou
No, the MWP and LIA didn’t run into each other over a 900 year period. Earlier this year I wrote an article on the LIA
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/19/the-intermittent-little-ice-age/
the LIA was of an intermittent nature with a core few cold decades but mostly comprised of cold years or severe winters, being juxtaposed with hot summers and warm years. Probably the warmest period in this record is around 1540.
So we can see great natural variability. Phil Jones wrote an article on it in 2006 when he expressed surprise that the warm 1730’s decade can be brought to a halt by the extremely severe winter of 1740.
The extremes happened before the advent of mans co2 input so whatever the climate is sensitive to, during the period under review it obviously wasn’t that gas.
If we accept that both the MWP and LIA probably weren’t monolithically warm or cold periods but were characterised by those traits, we can perhaps begin to better understand cyclical factors and that such aspects as winds coming from predominantly one direction for decades will likely considerably affect the characteristics of that decade.
Kington of CRU recently wrote a book in which he enumerates the characteristics of each decade over the last 500 years.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by nickels
Critical thinking, different thing. It involves no ‘critical thinking’, only criticism.
An unknowing person might thing such a thing obscure, but, in fact, it underlies almost all of sociology and has bled into many other disciplines in the modern university. A study of the most influential papers in psychology easily demonstrate the massive influence of critical theory.
Critical race theory, the modern pillar for the racial grievance industry is a direct offspring.
What I am arguing is that the heavy obsession with social justice in Climate and Environmental sciences are demonstrative that it has, in fact, permeated science as well, especially the green sciences.
“According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246). ”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
““Socialism … is essentially prophetic Messianism …” So Erich Fromm writes in his 1961 classic Marx’s Concept of Man. World-renowned Critical Theorist, activist, psychoanalyst, and public Marxist intellectual, Erich Fromm (1900-1980) played a pivotal role in the early Frankfurt Institute for Social Research and influenced emancipatory projects in multiple disciplines. ”
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9789462098121
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Lou Maytrees
AK, i didn’t expect anything else from you except to double down once again. Its a habit with you folks. You’ve reposted the full abstract and yet your original ‘italicized’ quote is 40 words long.
And not once in the total abstract does Hansen mention “large scale glaciation” as you claim he did in your ‘italicized’ abstract quote. Then you simply go on to rearrange out of context phrases to fit your agenda and to make it look like a direct quote from the abstract.
You could have easily done better esp since your the fella who claimed “theres an enormous difference between (a) misquote and what i said,”.
LOL, i’m betting you’ll triple down again mr “obvious l1er”.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by Craig Loehle
It is also very unclear what exactly the courts would decide. That warming is happening? Not a very useful ruling. That there will be Al Gore’s 20 ft sea level rise? Not many scientists believe that. That IPCC reports are gospel? In that case they can’t revise them.
↧
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by cerescokid
Refreshing candor. I’m more likely to trust someone who admits how much they don’t know than someone blinded by their certainty.
↧
Comment on Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science by nickels
“A study of the most influential papers in SOCIOLOGY”
Psychology, well, Freud had his own brand of secular messianic savlation (destroy repressive Western Civilization).
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Lou Maytrees
k, tks for some observations on the MWP and LIA. But they do not matter as the claim is there was a 4*C swing in temp extremes between those two ‘periods’ which shows a rather high climate sensitivity on this planet.
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Lou Maytrees
kim, yer ‘funny’. And thats a funny question you asked. So what do specific forcings have to do with a 4*C swing in climate temps, as you folks claim, from 950ad to 1850ad? Why you hung up on that?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by kim
I just don’t think he’s going to get it, like the monkey who can’t let go of the prize within the narrow necked jar.
Look at it this way, Lou; the higher the climate sensitivity to CO2, the colder we’d now be without man’s efforts.
=================
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by kim
Lou, if you’re going to insist on perverting discourse by not observing temporal discipline, your readers will end up as confused as you are.
===============
↧
Comment on Climate closure (?) by Steven Mosher
tony b
“The extremes happened before the advent of mans co2 input so whatever the climate is sensitive to, during the period under review it obviously wasn’t that gas.”
Logical fallacy.
The easiest way to see it is with a simple analogy.
According to climate theory, the climate is a function of forcings
ALL forcings. Some are negative and some are positive. They
change over time.
If you have more positive forcings then your energy balance goes UP.
and the planet warms.
So imagine you have a bank account: And you have incomes
and expenses.
on the incomes side you have Rents and Wages.
Now suppose for the 10 years you have no increase in rents
you have rents of 10 bucks and wages of 10 bucks for total income
of 20 bucks. looking at your balance it ranges bewteen 0 and 20 bucks.
same total income, but the balance changes. Why? well because your expenses change.
Now suppose your rental income starts to increase at 2 bucks a year.
IF ALL ELSE REMAINS EQUAL ( wages, and expenses ) then your balance will increase.. it will STILL fluctuate, but the general drift will be upwards.
Now suppose you looked at the balances for the prior 10 years, documented the swings in balance and ASSERTED that the account
was not sensitive to rents?
That would be stupid.
basically, you cant tell very much from the past without an accounting
of all the incomes and expenses.. or at least an accounting of the significant incomes and expenses.
Changes in the past are driven by forcings: Total forcings. Not “gas”
but the forcings created by those gases. You cannot understand the past by only looking at the account BALANCE. the balance tells you nothing about the individual expenses or incomes. Look at the balance “obscures” the details that are important.
“The extremes happened before the advent of mans co2 input so whatever the climate is sensitive to, during the period under review it obviously wasn’t that gas.”
Another way to see the fallacy here is to understand that change has
many causes. Another simple example. A bunch of people died from
AK 47 attacks. we see the murder rate increase.
Tony comes along and points to historical data showing past increases.
he concludes.. since there were changes in death rates before the existence of the AK 47, that the AK 47 can have nothing to do with increasing rates today.
studying the past is cool.
abusing it? not so cool
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
