Mosher evidently didn’t read the first article in this post: ECS in Antarctica found to be zero or even negative.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Jim Steele
Pat, Thank you linking to that new paper. I had not read it until now.
However your quote mining does not support your quibbling that “Increases in primary productivity do not automatically lead to more walrus food.”
Did you read the paper because it further confirms what I wrote that in addition to less ice “ocean currents bathe large sections of those shallow shelves with nutrient rich subtropical waters further enhancing productivity”. The authors link the declines in biomass with a decline productivity due to fewer nutrients advected in the Anadyr Water through the Bering Strait.
This brings up another point that I did not elaborate on but is critical for understanding how natural cycles reduce sea ice and increase the ocean’s carrying capacity. Much of the reduced sea ice in the Chukchi has been associated with increased flows of warmer waters through the Bering Strait. That inflow also brought more nutrients so that reduced ice cover could then increase primary productivity.
Their model reported
“possible mechanisms of climate influence on the production/biomass of benthic macrofauna. Increased transport through Bering Strait of Anadyr Water and associated nutrients would enhance production, food supply, macrofaunal growth increments, and overall production and biomass of benthic fauna. Increased seawater temperatures would also increase growth increments and associated benthic production and biomass. In comparison, decreased volume transport through Bering Strait would have a negative impact on food supply and, if temperatures were lower, would decrease benthic growth increments and reduce benthic production and biomass.”
Although their model is valid and important, their discussion about a decline ignored the fact that less sea ice allowed other air-breathing bottom feeders like Gray Whales and Bearded seals to proliferate in the Chukchi.
Nonetheless based on their model you should be most concerned for the walruses if there is less inflow of Anadyr water and an increase of sea ice causing a decline in primary productivity.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Springer
Mosher evidently didn’t read the first article in this post: ECS in Antarctica found to be zero or less.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Jim Steele
Josh, Please you are just sniping and making personal attacks. Keep it professional.
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by RichardLH
Sort of. The point is that 0:infinity are not really ‘numbers’ in the way people think at all. In logical terms they are just symbols that carry a meaning.
People will get blinded by the symbol, but fail to notice the meaning (pun).
x = 1/x is a case in point. That is at the heart of all calculus. It says you can move terms left or right across the equals in equations. That is all. You can never be absolutely certain that you have chosen companions wisely to set your ‘view’ of what you see.
Likewise casual use of zero or infinity. There is a lot more to that story than people know IMHO. This is all logic. Nothing to do with Climate. That just happens to be using the logic again without necessarily understanding the implication of what they do.
So, ‘careful Will Robinson’ there may be unseen assumptions hidden in plain sight. I am just trying to point out some of them.
Logicians are always put in a corner to mutter on their own. Come and listen in for a while.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
It’s not recent.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
First, show your source for the “No natural ‘cycles’ that matter can possibly be there.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma by 2015 → 2016 – Web-Log9
[…] year’, ‘pause’, and all that Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters […]
↧
Comment on 400(?) years of warming by 2015 → 2016 – Web-Log9
[…] to temperature data Hiatus controversy: show me the data Draft APS Statement on Climate Change 400(?) years of warming Hansen’s […]
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
It seems 97% of CE bloggers have gone senile.
I’d suggest a change of topics to revive interest and to have more effect on the course of relevant future discussions.
I suggest change focus from discussing temperature trends, climate sensitivity, climate science to discussing:
1. impacts
2. damage function
3. policy options, policy analysis, cost-benefit analysis, risk analysis, Decision Analysis, Robust Decision Making
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RichardLH
First answer the observation. It can be considered that the UAH/RSS are displaying the first half of a 60 year cycle. Fits the observed data quite well.
In order for it to be considered as the rising slope all are claiming you first have to disprove that observation (in total otherwise you need to add some weighting).
So is it half a 60 year cycle or not? And why?
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by physicistdave
David Springer wrote to me:
Really? Somehow our globe spanning satellites carrying microwave sounding units measuring the temperature of various levels in the troposphere missed that net warming for the past 17 years or so.
The data don’t support your assertion, physicistDave.
And, when I ate dinner this evening, I failed to confirm the laws of thermodynamics. Really. It’s not that I disconfirmed the laws of thermodynamics, it’s just that the data I had at dinner was so complex that I could not carefully measure the increase in entropy.
Same thing.
You misunderstand how science works. Not every single observation is expected to test every single law of science. Everyone knows that climate is messy: to expect to confirm or disconfirm basic laws involving radiation physics, thermodynamics, etc. by observations on climate is silly.
Those laws have been abundantly confirmed by a huge number of careful experiments in which we can control the various variables and see what happens. We cannot isolate single variables in the case of climate, for obvious reasons — we cannot directly control the climate to suit our experimental needs, and there are so many conflicting causes in climate that we cannot observationally isolate the different causes in any easy way.
So, in analyzing climate, we are quite right to make use of extremely well-confirmed laws of physics, taking them for granted, without trying to test those laws via the climate data.
Saying, as you do, “The data don’t support your assertion, physicistDave” is just silly. The extremely messy, multi-causal climate data really could not either support or disprove my assertion, and we do not need it too. We already know the relevant laws of physics beyond reasonable doubt: no responsible scientist thinks that we need climatological data to test those laws.
The problem is applying those knows laws of physics to understanding climate, and that has proven to be fiendishly difficult, for reasons that are now fairly well understood: the mathematically chaotic nature of climate, the interaction of radically different distance and time scales (a computational nightmare), the potential impact of exogenous variables (e.g., variation in the solar constant)… and a host of others that people like Judith, Lindzen, et al. have discussed in detail.
But the enormous difficulty of the field (I think you agree with me on how difficult it is to model climate) does not change the fact that people who deny simple laws of physics — e.g., people who claim CO2 cannot have any warming effect at all — are simply mistaken.
Dave
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by physicistdave
Dave,
Once again, I have replied in the wrong place in the threads: hope you can find it above! Sorry.
Dave
↧
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by Peter M Davies
Dave Miller from Sacramento? Everyone knows who he is!
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by physicistdave
David Springer wrote to me:
You obviously don’t understand control theory. It’s an engineering thing. Lots of systems maintain some constant state despite changes in forcings. A constant current source in electronics keeps current flow constant despite changing loads.
Actually, I have designed current sources for integrated circuits: the ones I designed did not rely on feedback. And, while my current sources were designed to vary by a very small amount, yes, they did depend slightly on the load. C’est la vie. (I took my introduction to digital electronics course from Carver Mead at Caltech, by the way, a fellow you may have heard of if you have any experience in digital ICs.)
The integrated-circuit work I did was as a member of a team that won a technical Emmy Award (’88 or ’89) from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (I emphasize I was only one member of the team: the award went to TRW LSI Products, the firm for which I worked).
Since my bosses were happy with my work, and since the folks who award the Emmys liked the end result, well, I think that is evidence that I actually do have some practical engineering knowledge of current sources, feedback, and such.
And, perhaps, the Ph.D. in physics from Stanford might suggest that I also understand the underlying physics and math?
But I am sure that your credentials, experience, and knowledge vastly exceed my own. By all means, let us know.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by Peter Lang
What’s his expertise, experience, credentials?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RichardLH
Another simple question for all.
What is a zero? How is it used, and what implications does it imply for any equations that use it? (logic question)
↧
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by Peter M Davies
It doesn’t matter Peter L. What has been posted should be read for what it means to the reader and the source of the comment shouldn’t make any difference to any objective reader!
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Despite the look at my credentials fest, ECS can approach zero and now that there is a peer reviewed paper on how Antarctic sensitivity can even be negative (really frustrating that the obvious requires a certified paper in what should be an informal discussion) along with latent heat offsetting the majority of warming, we could be at the point where we discuss why ESC is over estimated and nearly useless.
I noticed on Issac Held’s blog yesterday that the TCR/ECS ratio is estimated to range from about 0.3 to 0.7 which looks limited. Since TCR/ECS can approach 1 as TCR approaches zero (one of those complicated 1s) it would be fun to redefine ECS so that isn’t so complicated.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/03/11/3-transient-vs-equilibrium-climate-responses/
I believe the “normal” approach doesn’t include a negative sensitivity at very low temperatures aka the Antarctic situation:)
↧
Comment on A War Against Fire by Peter Lang
Yes, I Agree. I haven’t been following, so just asked out of boredom with the incessant debate of irrelevancies.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
