you skipped the validation part of the paper mike.
and you skipped the math.
read what AK wrote again…
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher,
You wrote –
“sorry Mike you are wrong again”
About what, precisely?
Now it may be that you are just stupid, as well as gullible and deluded.
Even if I was wrong, I might be able to correct the deficit. Stupidity, gullibility and delusional behaviour, on the other hand, might persist until you die.
In any case, I wish you well.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by JCH
Here's a little present for the "but wait for the next La Nina" crowd.
I say wait for the next back-to-back La Nina events. That should really snot knocker warming.
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1933/to:1939.83/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1933/to:1939.83" rel="nofollow">Except, when the PDO was ramping up, it warmed aggressively during back-to-back La Nina events between 1933 and 1040. Got hotter. A lot hotter. Natural variation is not the friend of skeptics.</a>
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher,
Unfortunately, measuring the temperature of the water inside a borehole ( presumably cased, but not specified) tells you the temperature of the water at that depth. Nothing more, nothing less.
You might decide that the air temperature was measured. Just as pointless. Maybe you think the material comprising the bore walls was measured. Not so useful, if the material has been exposed to either air or water for any length of time.
In any case, unless the boreholes were made with a magic drilling rig, where the drilling head generated no heat, and no fluid or drilling mud was used to flush the drill waste from the hole, the temperatures of the exposed bore walls are useless for anything except rough indications of the local geothermal gradient.
Even worse, if the boreholes are cased, which is usual. Metallic casings conduct heat, making precision temperature reading of the borehole surfaces impossible. Plastic cases are even worse, for the opposite reason.
USGS –
“Temperature Tools
The temperature log can be used to give a useful profile of the thermal conductivity of rocks adjacent to the borehole and a measurement of the local geothermal gradient when the borehole is allowed to stabilize for a period of time (at least several days) after drilling ceases, assuming there is no convection in the borehole. The temperature log can be used to indicate where water is entering or exiting a borehole, where there is flow in the borehole, and to trace a dynamic fluid-temperature front between
wells. Temperature logs need to be run in fluid-filled boreholes, either cased or uncased. Most temperature tools range from 1.0 to 1.5 in. in diameter.”
You will note “assuming there is no convection in the borehole.” No problem, if Warmist physics is employed. The colder denser water at the top of the hole will not displace the warmer less dense water at the bottom of the hole. More magic?
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Sorry, still no cooling propagated from the surface to the warmer depths. Tosh and balderdash!
Cheers.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Vaughan Pratt
@ordvic: Vaughan Pratt showed SI as 40% culprit from ’10 to ’40.
Confirmable only as per the bottom line of this comment.
In the meantime I’ve done a somewhat better job of presenting this information in this graph.
The following rises for 1910-1940 can be roughly confirmed by inspecting the graph (for more precision I cheated and looked at the plotted numbers themselves.
21-year HadCRUT4 (to remove the Hale cycle): 0.395 °C.
GHGs collectively (with CO2 contributing about 80% according to the IPCC): 0.082 °C.
Solar forcing (TSI): 0.055 °C.
This leaves 0.395 − 0.082 − 0.055 = 0.258 ° attributable to all other influences. This would be some combination of warmings and coolings due to natural and/or human influences such as aerosols, instabilities in ocean currents, Length-Of-Day (LOD) fluctuations, the stadium wave (Wyatt and Curry), the 3M effect (me, December 17, Global Environmental Change section, this AGU Fall Meeting), etc. etc.
In percentages the rise during 1910-1940 can therefore be apportioned as
GHGs: 21%
TSI : 14%
Rest: 65%
If considering only GHGs and TSI, the latter is exactly 40%.
↧
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Science or Fiction
“Biases can be largely removed using empirical techniques a posteriori”
That’s how I panel beat.
– ghl
Thanks ghl – nice put :) :)
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Steven Mosher
Huai river Mike.
Read it.
Then your mistakes should be clear to you.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Steven Mosher
Mathew the Pm25 spike is due to district heating.
As for power generation the goal is to move people away from coal. For health and climate reasons.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Steven Mosher
Don’t worry about cooling. There are much more potent ghg than co2
↧
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher,
You Warmist diversionary tactics don’t seem to be working too well. You apparently claim that I am wrong about something. I ask you to be specific, and you respond “Huai river”.
I didn’t mention the Huai River, so I can only presume you are becoming tired and emotional.
I would rather be mistaken than stupid. Luckily, I am neither,
Provide some facts if you wish – pointless and irrelevant links do you no credit. A tactic of true believers such as AFOMD, but stupid.
No facts? I thought not?
Cheers.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Vaughan Pratt
Kathleen H.: Would that not account for one pole’s ice melting while the other is stable or grows in any period? What would that effect be on climate or increased temperatures changes over different areas of earth as it wonders back and forth?
Are you asking about such effects on a time scale of 100 years or 100,000 years?
The answers are quite different. Only the former has any bearing on climate during this century. The slower pace of the latter makes such fluctuations less problematic for biodiversity etc. But perhaps you’re more interested in the latter, which is certainly interesting in its own right.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher,
You wrote –
“As for power generation the goal is to move people away from coal. For health and climate reasons.”
It seems you have boarded Hansen’s Death Train. I’m sure the grateful Chinese (and maybe the Indians too), will shower you with garlands, and prostrate themselves before. Or they might politely chuckle behind their hands, at the ignorant foreigner and his hubris.
Move away from coal. A laudable goal, but maybe you can come up with a cure for cancer while you work out how to keep civilisation going in the absence of coal. Maybe you could utilise the well-known heat storing abilities of CO2. Store the heat during the day, and release it at night, boiling water to drive steam turbines.
There’s quite a lot of sunshine in India and China. How hard could it be?
Cheers.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Vaughan Pratt
Averaged over a year, Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at Top Of Atmosphere (TOA) is the same for both hemispheres. The reason is that the greater total heat in joules applied to the hemisphere more oriented towards the Sun during perihelion (near Sun) turns out to be cancelled by the greater heat applied to the other hemisphere during aphelion (distant from Sun).
This is a consequence of Kepler’s Law for elliptical orbits whereby Earth travels more slowly during aphelion and hence has longer to accumulate the heat that has been reduced by the greater distance.
Once you see where Kepler’s Law enters into this cancellation you shouldn’t be too surprised if the two effects roughly cancel. What I found interesting was that they cancel exactly, independently of the Keplerian orbital elements of eccentricity, inclination (axial tilt), and argument of periapsis (phase).
AFAIK this is a new result involving the computation of a delicate integral which yielded to a neat trick. Which if novel one would expect to be eminently publishable as a short communication in a suitable physics or geophysics venue. For starters say, physics arXiv.
So I wrote it up carefully, completely, and (so I thought) neatly, in a format I’m accustomed to using for short communications (in this case a mere two Latex pages printable on a single sheet of paper), and submitted it to the physics arXiv.
Well, what do you know? It was rejected, not on the ground that it was wrong (which it certainly wasn’t), or uninteresting (that many people believe the opposite should surely make it interesting), or a known result (which it may well be but who knows?), but that it was not formatted for journal publication.
What? Nothing about whether it was correct, interesting, novel, etc. And moreover no way to appeal the decision – the judges decision is final.
I concluded that the people who review arXiv submissions are incompetent. Having no shortage of other good problems to work on I saw no point trying to fight these physics people. And it’s not the first time I’ve experienced this with short communications on the physics arXiv. I don’t have this problem with mathematics venues, which is probably where I’ll get around to submitting it next.
The irony is that the arXiv’s have been drowning in volume of submissions for quarter of a century. One would therefore imagine they would welcome a submission making its point clearly and succinctly (one sheet of paper!) instead of rejecting it by taking succinctness as a criterion for unsuitability for journal publication.
↧
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Mike Flynn
Vaughan Pratt,
How about a time scale of less than 10 years? It appears probable that the temperature of Greenland increased about 7 C in less than 10 years. The IPCC acknowledges “less than a few decades”.
In any case, dramatic rises and falls of temperature unlike anything in our experience, seem to have occurred.
I fervently hope I don’t have to experience such an event. It might well disturb my quiet enjoyment of life, eh?
Cheers.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Vaughan Pratt
@MF: <i>Correct me if I’m wrong. People promoting boreholeometers believe that surface heat from say, 500 years ago crept below the surface during the day, and did not move back toward the surface at night when the surface cooled.</i>
Thus far I've never called anyone a troll on CE. But after following Mike Flynn's arguments about boreholes, which bear a distressing similarity to all his other arguments, there can be no question that Mike Flynn is not here in any capacity other than to play the troll.
While I'd be perfectly happy to explain the quantitative physics of boreholes to Mike, what would be the point? Mike Flynn is here for no other reason than to suck up people's time with inane remarks, arguments, and contradictions, none of which show the slightest interest in actually learning anything worthwhile.
<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dftt" rel="nofollow">DFTT</a>: Don't Feed The Troll.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Vaughan Pratt
@Mosher: sorry Mike you are wrong again
This brings to mind the scene in Stephen Sondheim’s Into The Woods where Little Red Riding Hood quizzically asks Cinderella, “You talk to birds?”
One of my favorite lines in the whole musical, along with “I was raised to be charming, not sincere.”
Steven, you talk to trolls?
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by justinwonder
Richard,
“… whereas the thermal lag of water by contrast is great and whilst energy is being absorbed due to its large heat capacity the response is slow…”
Thanks for your response. My point was the large heat capacity of the immense ocean. I suspect the ocean has a tremendous buffering effect on changes to climate. Then there are the effects of the triple point of water, ice, rain, the ozone, and plate tectonics. It is not easy to warm the planet.
↧
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Mike Flynn
ordvic,
Apsidal precession, combined with all the other odd and not so odd peregrinations of the orbit, axial tilt, magnetic poles, core and mantle fluid dynamics, continents bobbing around all over the place and so on, make my head hurt!
Can no one rid me of this pestilential chaos?
Cheers.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by justinwonder
Thanks for the info. I wish I knew more about thermodynamics and heat transport. I would love to see more postings about the effects of the oceans upon climate.
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by stevepostrel
Picking only the models that happened to match the recent record is a recipe for locking into spurious correlation of model and data. There isn’t much reason to think that the model that fits the record better in the past will continue to do so in the future unless you have some specific causal theory about what makes that model better than the others.
↧
