DW, the ocean can only uptake enough to reach a new equilibrium between its surface CO2 and the atmosphere. If it was only shallow water, the ocean would not take up much at all before being in equilibrium with the atmosphere. It is only because the ocean has a deep circulation that it can get CO2 levels at its surface down, and stay out of equilibrium with the atmospheric concentration, but that circulation is slow, which is how it appears to have a 50-year time scale.
You say you don’t know why CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere? Really? Emissions.
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Jim D
DM, you wondered why Smith would care about NASA data adjustments. I answered that he relies on it. I am not going into the rest of your diatribe, as it seemed irrelevant to this point.
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by David Wojick
Jim D, you seem to be ignoring the fact that tremendous amounts of CO2 are being produced by the ocean biosphere. These amounts are probably variable, in space and time.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by matthewrmarler
Victor Venema, thank you for stopping by.
see those 5 as stronger than the evidence that there is no tropical hotspot from the satellites and some radiosonde datasets.
Is there some mechanism by which the satellites could be missing the tropical hot spot while being accurate everywhere else?
In your reasons, 3 and 5, are you asserting that there is good evidence that basic science and models are both complete and accurate? My readings reveal incompleteness/omissions and sources of inaccuracy; the models, for example, have number of parameters whose values have been set via sort of “informal” reasoning (aka “guessing”, but informed guessing).
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by Jim D
Yes, I ignore that because the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere over time looks very much like the accumulated emissions over time. Both are almost exponential growth curves starting at the same time, and growing faster through the industrial era.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by opluso
Global foreign aid for developing countries only hit $135 billion in 2013. Now we need another $100b by 2020?
Despite the fact that this big round number is a purely political, rather than economic, calculation, I would like to offer my bank account as a pass thru mechanism. I think I can undercut the typical NGO “overhead” expenses deducted from the annual amounts. Where do I sign up?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Don Monfort
You are disingenuously deflecting, yimmy. You don’t know how to be honest. Smith’s liking for UAH, or shrimp, or ice cream has nothing to do with his investigation of allegations from NOAA whistleblower SCIENTISTS that some NOAA sighentists have been influenced by politics and have not followed the agency’s rules. Now bring up UAH again, clown.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Victor Venema
Matthew, no I have no idea what could be wrong. <a href="https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/670295295989673984" rel="nofollow">Zeke Hausfather just tweeted a link to an article</a> suggesting that in future the adjustments may need to be higher. I did not read this article yet.
Given the central role in the climate "debate" I have tried to get some colleagues knowledgeable about microwave radiometry enthusiastic about the topic. However, a climatologically short dataset with really difficult trend errors is not very attractive for a better understanding of the climate system. And there are no users the need to know the tropospheric temperature to estimate impacts. Science funding is determined by scientific value, that this dataset has political value does not count.
In general, it is a hard place to make good measurements. Outliers are often the place where you notice the limits of your methods. To repeat an older comment:
Radiosonde measurements are difficult. It is called a "hot" spot because the warming is stronger, <a href="http://www.goes-r.gov/users/comet/tropical/textbook_2nd_edition/navmenu.php_tab_2_page_5.0.0.htm" rel="nofollow">but actually it is very cold there</a>, one of the coldest places on Earth. Next to producing an unbiased sensor over such a large temperature range, there are measurement errors due to radiation (and little ventilation at low pressure) and wetting of the sensor in clouds and subsequent evaporative cooling. That makes sufficiently accurate measurements very hard and radiosondes are just one-use instruments and their designs have changed / improved over the years, which may cause artificial trends. The hotspot is not seen in the temperature trends directly, but if you look at the changes in the wind patterns, you do see it. <a href="https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/tropospheric-hot-spot/" rel="nofollow">Also a radiosonde analysis from this year did find a hotspot.</a> Let's see if this result holds.
For the satellite estimates the coldness of the "hot spot" also means that not much radiation comes from the "hot spot", this while the satellite sees the integral over the entire column and thus has to "remove" the influence of the hot stratosphere above and troposphere and ground below. The latter being exceptionally hot. The satellite estimates come from a number of satellites launched one after another. They have different designs (frequency band and calibration differences), which need to be corrected for. The satellites drift in position and thus measure the temperature during different times of the day and the first satellites did not have fuel to maintain height. All this necessitates large corrections and it is difficult to check whether a good job was done because at any one time, there are normally just a few satellites up in space one can compare with.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Don Monfort
Dr. Venema, why don’t we go with the ten models that are “more accurate” than the others? Or twenty, if you like. Get rid of that ball of spaghetti that doesn’t look at all credible.
Hey, we could go with the twenty models that have come closet to observations. Is that OK? Or would you prefer the twenty that are closet to the model mean?
With the money saved from not having to pay those jokers messing around with all those less accurate models, we could put up some more satellites and deploy more buoys. Or feed the hungry.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by David Wojick
And so you personify AGW, Jim D, by ignoring natural variability because of how the changes “look” to you. Nor have you responded to my explicit points, rather carefully made. You seem to assume that the ocean’s only job is to get into equillibrium with the atmosphere. The reality is quite the opposite.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by jim2
From the article:
…
Peter Thiel writes in the NYT that what’s especially strange about the failed push for renewables is that we already had a practical plan back in the 1960s to become fully carbon-free without any need of wind or solar: nuclear power. “But after years of cost overruns, technical challenges and the bizarre coincidence of an accident at Three Mile Island and the 1979 release of the Hollywood horror movie “The China Syndrome,” about a hundred proposed reactors were canceled,” says Thiel. “If we had kept building, our power grid could have been carbon-free years ago. Instead, we went in reverse.”
According to Thiel, a new generation of American nuclear scientists has produced designs for better reactors. Crucially, these new designs may finally overcome the most fundamental obstacle to the success of nuclear power: high cost. Designs using molten salt, alternative fuels and small modular reactors have all attracted interest not just from academics but also from entrepreneurs and venture capitalists like me ready to put money behind nuclear power. However, none of these new designs can benefit the real world without a path to regulatory approval, and today’s regulations are tailored for traditional reactors, making it almost impossible to commercialize new ones. “Both the right’s fear of government and the left’s fear of technology have jointly stunted our nuclear energy policy,” concludes Thiel. “supporting nuclear power with more than words is the litmus test for seriousness about climate change. Like Nixon’s going to China, this is something only Mr. Obama can do. If this president clears the path for a new atomic age, American scientists are ready to build it.”
…
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by JCH
Natural variability is warming the tar out of the surface right now, and it’s likely going to get worse over the next 10 to 15 years. AMO will be going up along with the PDO. Regime shift, 2013. Get ready for some shocking 10-year warming rates. Expect strident calls for studying natural variability to get variable: often called a drought.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Victor Venema
Don Monfort, it would be more pleasant to have this discussion in a more civilized tone.
If the “whistle-blower” exists, for which at the moment we only have the word of Lamar Smith, no documents, no known whistle-blower at the scientific integrity office of NOAA. If the “whistle-blower” exists, we still have the problem that the times do not fit. The claim is that the whistle-blower told the scientists in “April, May, and June of 2015” that the study was rushed, but the Science paper was submitted much earlier and the SST temperature dataset that is the cause of the changes is even older.
Details here:
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/22/9777582/lamar-smith-noaa
Also interesting: Coal CEO Thanks Lamar Smith, Asks Him to Expand Probe of Climate Scientists
Do you really want the government in the business of picking scientific winners and losers by harassing scientists presenting inconvenient results? I prefer freedom of science. In Germany we have that in the constitution. The Americans wrote it into the constitution after WWII. In Germany the actions of Lamar Smith would be completely illegal.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Willis Eschenbach
As always, Dr. Judith, a most interesting and eclectic collection. I went to look at this one:
<blockquote>VERY interesting: New paper finds length of day (LOD) is strongly correlated to Northern Hemisphere temperatures [<a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/EI-D-15-0014.1?af=R" rel="nofollow"><b>link</a></b>]</blockquote>
The author takes the average CMIP5 computer modeled estimate of the NH historical temperature, subtracts it from observations, and names the part that is left over the<em> "intrinsic component of climate variability"</em>.
Who knew it was so easy to separate the "intrinsic climate variability" from the rest of the signal and noise? Just take the average of a fistful of unverified, unvalidated models, subtract that average from the observations, and voilá!
Intrinsic variability revealed!
w.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Victor Venema
Don Monfort, having less models sounds good to me. I like observations. Have been working with observations for most of my career. And we could use a lot more climate-quality observations.
Who would you like to be the person to select which of the climate models of groups from all over the world have to stop developing the model they have invested their career in? The UN, Obama?
I would not select models based on their reproduction of the temperature trend. That would lead to an underestimation of the uncertainties. If we would select the models with the best reproduction of the cloud fields, which is a main source of uncertainty in climate projections, this set of models would have a higher climate sensitivity.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by jim2
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by Willis Eschenbach
With that said, the underlying idea is interesting, and the correlations are strong. Significant? … not sure yet.
w.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by Joel Williams
Wow, JCH
where did this "natural variability" bit come from? Thought you were all for CO2 being the culprit. Or is it whatever makes the PDO move the way you wish? So, <b>how much (%) of the future global "warming" will you be attributing to</b> this "<b>Natural variability ... warming the tar out of the surface right now, and it’s likely going to get worse</b>" vs CO2 being the scapegoat?
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by mosomoso
So…at stupendous cost we are to create a massive class of Technocrats Without Borders and Political Elites Without Borders, and they will offer to the weather gods many splendid white elephants on our behalf.
Meanwhile Military Without Borders will save us from something called “the murderous Assad regime” (whatever that is, it sounds really bad!) and Sunnis Without Borders will come and brighten our neighbourhoods.
Great plan, and all without borders. Why we didn’t think of it sooner?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by dpy6629
Victor, I’m not sure why no hotspot would mean higher sensitivity. It just means that the tropopause theory is missing sonething, which would be a big deal for climate science I think.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
