DWP, I am not changing the subject. My original response that you quoted was to correct CH. The point was subtle. Increased CO2 leads to more downward IR whether the air warms or not (MODTRAN shows you this). This alone can drive surface warming I am sure you would agree. Atmospheric warming is beside the point, being unnecessary to understand why surface warming happens, while CH implied it was necessary. The air temperature in the troposphere is governed by the surface, so it isn’t going to warm first anyway unless you do things like insulate it from the ground which means it is not physically the troposphere anymore. In your thought experiment, fixing the ground temperature means that the troposphere temperature is also fixed as convection will adjust to compensate for radiative changes. This is the concept of convective-radiative equilibrium that gives a lapse rate determined uniquely by the surface temperature.
Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Chad Wozniak
Re my last posting: no politics here, just observable facts,
↧
Comment on State shift (?) in Earth’s biosphere by Bart R
Oh, and for those who need a timg56-to-English translation:
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/post_68.html
But note also
Note the BPA’s been pro-renewables for over three years. And energy efficiency? Who can be against more efficiency in what after all is a heavily government-favored sector?
The cyber-security this united front of Pacific Northwest politicians is opposing is to fight Flame-like attacks a pernicious form of malicious software out in the wild and capable of shutting down any power infrastructure, making the PNW vulnerable to blackmail by hackers. It’s a legitimate, bona fide, if anything understated threat every American who isn’t off-grid (so I guess that makes timg56 and his Montana Freemen buddies feel a bit smug) can be affected by.
This is another case where the politicians have it wrong, and are pretending to be backed by principle, when what’s really going on is something else entirely. One might almost *cough* smell the trough running dry for them.
↧
Comment on State shift (?) in Earth’s biosphere by Dave Springer
7.62 is a far superior round for hunting large game. If you plan on fighting a million other people in a city somewhere over what’s left of the food & water supply then 5.56 is probably a better choice. The weapon won’t need to last very long in that case because you won’t last very long either.
Just sayin’.
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Bruce of Newcastle
Bart - Thanks for the correction, yes Tacoma Narrows. It didn't fall down magically, there was a forcing. Which we can argue about.
As to the sinusoidal. The sine of best fit seems to be 64 years for HadCRUT. But AMO and PDO appear to have a 64 year period which is not synchronous. Is that due to the different parameters being measured, or is it a temporal delay, eg due to the great conveyer belt, or atmospheric coupling? I don't know. Maybe the Arctic is the primary driver given the clear AMO signal and rougher PDO and ENSO waveforms. That would fit well with Soon 2005. But a 64-ish year signal in those 4 datasets there is.
And 64 years is a neat ratio to the average solar cycle length of 10.66 years. But that period is variable (as I said...pSCL). We do not have data to go back and fully describe the signal, or signals. We have 2 wavelengths and change in HadCRUT and the AMO, less in the other datasets. But it should not be ignored, when the amplitude in HadCRUT explains most of the 'warming' in the training period for many models of 1970-2000 or thereabouts. About 0.27 C trough to peak in HadCRUT. And the fact that bottom of the cycle was in 1900, top of the following cycle in 2000. So one full trough to peak double amplitude is in the 'warming' across the 20th C...or about 1/3rd of that warming signal. Take out the solar magnetic response and you have about enough <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/68018872@N08/6184340351/" rel="nofollow">left</a> for CO2 at a 2XCO2 around the 0.7 K mark.
Neither of these significant variables appear to be included in the official models.
I also should mention that a frequency modulated radio signal is not "nothing". If the solar cycle varies from 9 to 13 years (more in the Maunder), then there would potentially be varied frequency and amplitude. It would not be nothing, it'd be complex. Anyway the suggestion that the solar cycle is a forcing for emergent periodic behaviour is just speculation on my part. That does not detract from the clear signal which is there for anyone with graph paper to see.
I also gave it a 60-65 year range as Dr Scafetta in his recent paper identifies a signal of around 60-62 years. I have only slightly scanned his paper. Knight et al 2005 (et al including Dr Mann) identify ~30 and ~100 year signals in thermohaline periodicity (and you can see the AMO signal clearly in their Fig 1). Similar SC periodics. I don't know enough, nor looked enough into the possible causes of the periodicity, but Kepler didn't know what gravity was when he solved the equations for planetary motion...he was fitting data to cyclic equations. Cautiously. As anyone now doing the same with climate data does, <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/16/another-skeptical-university-professor-fired-related-to-carbs-pm2-5-air-pollution-regulation-scandal/" rel="nofollow">cautiously</a>.
I'll post another comment with links to graphs showing the empirical signal I mentioned. Readers can decide for themselves. If you don't see it, my apology, as I'm not sure how many links force moderation.
↧
↧
Comment on State shift (?) in Earth’s biosphere by Robin Melville
Nice touch of irony ceteris. Watch this space for how soon the derivative bubble can unwind — coming soon to a bank near you. Which, coincidentally, speaks directly to Wag’s hilarious (on so many levels) “Fact 1″.
Industrialism has unleashed such extraordinary productive powers that most of us no longer need to actually make or grow things. We surf on the service froth which such productivity allows. Look around your room to see the mind-boggling range of industrial products we produce.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is a little bit crazy — as its periodic melt-downs attest (the grand-daddy of which is just getting started.)
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Dave Springer
330,000 km^2 right-of-way is enough for a 1000 lane (in each direction) highway to the moon. Maybe you should check that number again. It appears to be off by about 3 orders of magnitude.
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Michael
Long on opinion, very short on facts.
Just your garden variety ‘skeptic’, otherwise known as the credulous contrarians, trying to hide their ideological position behind a very thin veneer of ‘scienciness’.
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Dave Springer
Only a very small brain would not notice that 330,000 km^2 was absurdly wrong as the tiny brain was directing the fingers to type it. Especially when the figure was typed more than once. You have a problem, son.
↧
↧
Comment on State shift (?) in Earth’s biosphere by Bryan
Marx and Lenin (founders of Scientific Socialism) were both conscious of the possible falsification of their ideas;
a/ If the class nature of society changed
b/ If the dominant classes interests were to lead to economic stagnation.
The period 1860-1960 saw a global large scale industrialisation.
Factories employing several thousand people (the proletariat) were increasingly the norm.
Top down state directed plans like the Soviet Unions were quite successful in their outcomes in that period.
Even here in Britain we still enjoy the roads,railway systems and power infrastructure which were state directed after WW(II).
The period 1960- Present saw industry move in another direction, that is to decentralise.
Top down state control no longer worked well.
The Soviet Union stagnated while the Capitalist West pulled ahead.
However the present contradictions in the World Capitalist System may prove Marx and Lenin relevant once more.
The huge relative increase in wealth of the top 1% at the expense of the 99% is hamstringing the economy.
Austerity for the 99% is the only way out say representatives of the 1%.
But that leads to further collapse of the consumer society in a never ending downward spiral.
How many middle class folk watch their prospective pensions shrink as Bankers pocket ever bigger slices of the available money.
Of course it can’t last!
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Pointman
You been looking in the mirror again Michael?
Pointman
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Bruce of Newcastle
Some links showing the 64-ish year periodicity:
<a href="http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/amo200906.jpg" rel="nofollow">AMO</a> (see also Fig 1 in Knight et al 2005 <a href="http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/KnightetalGRL05.pdf" rel="nofollow">paper</a>)
<a href="http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/hcsinglesin.jpg" rel="nofollow">HadCRUT</a>
<a href="http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/pdo-wave.jpg" rel="nofollow">PDO</a>
<a href="http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/images-41.jpg?w=640&h=267&h=267" rel="nofollow">ENSO</a>
Note the period(s), and in the case of HadCRUT the amplitude and the trough and peak dates.
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/09/scaffeta-on-his-latest-paper-harmonic-climate-model-versus-the-ipcc-general-circulation-climate-models/" rel="nofollow">Scafetta</a>
As for the myth that "solar correlation with temperature ends around 1960", this is rubbish. The pSCL-ocean cycles-low pCO2 sensitivity model I use <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/68018872@N08/6184340351/in/photostream/" rel="nofollow">fits</a> that period better than any other time, since there's not much of a volcanic effect during that period aside from Pinatubo (I've not attempted to add a volcanic correction - but hey I'm a professional chemist not a climate scientist, the analysis was intended for me to test the competing claims of Dr Spencer and the IPCC). And SC22 was the shortest cycle in over 230 years!
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Dave Springer
Catastrophe could happen if CO2 *does not* double. A doubling of CO2 may delay or even prevent the end of the Holocene interglacial. Or possibly prevent a repeat of the Little Ice Age which would still rank as catastrophic. CAGW droolers seem oblivious to the fact that the earth has been in an ice age for the past several million years. Cold is something to fear. Warm is something to welcome. We can live without freezing cold winters, dummy. We can’t live without warm summers.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in Review 6/15/12 by Joe's World
Judith,
A little eerie to see our apple trees with absolutely no apples in a vast area of Ontario.
Would not our “scientists” know what chemical compounds that trigger our trees to blossom?
Hmmmmmm…..
↧
Comment on Week in Review 6/15/12 by Joe's World
A normal political AGW scare tactic to keep that consensus in line.
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Dave Springer
When glaciers retreat today human artifacts are often found beneath them. That includes Viking artifacts beneath retreating glaciers in Greenland.
Beneath the ice in Antarctica lies the remains of a temperate forest. During most of the earth’s history it had no permanent ice caps. Four million years ago it had no ice caps.
Mind blowing, huh?
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Bruce of Newcastle
Oh, and here is a link to <a href="http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/130Years.pdf, which shows quite a nice correlation between solar and temperature since 1960.
But he wasn’t using a UHI contaminated highly adjusted land only dataset to show his correlation. And yes, in the past I’ve crosschecked Dr Soon’s Fig 1 against independent sources of the same data. If I exert myself I could go find some links, but I don’t have them to hand.
But I agree that CO2 forcing has been significant in the last 60 years. I have it in my own model, which does not work without it. From what I see though, its just not large enough to be even remotely dangerous.
↧
↧
Comment on Analyzing AGW skepticism: missing the point? by Dave Springer
Unity with God, according to the believers.
↧
Comment on Week in Review 6/15/12 by David Wojick
Being prepared to change one’s mind hardly makes one a skeptic. To be skeptical means not accepting the proposition in question. You folks are trying to steal the word via a rhetorical semantic trick. It does not work.
Also, the claim that climate skeptics are somehow not prepared to change their minds is empirically unfounded. In fact it is probably untestable.
↧
Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist
I suggest that as the mass is removed from the oceans and added to the atmosphere as gases that there is a negative sea level effect.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
