omanuel | July 20, 2012 at 1:01 am
thanks Oliver, I'll state yours and Dr. Creighton's names, next to that sentence. Because extremist as the '' camarad Telescope'' would like to point out something wrong; thanks again!!!
Comment on No consensus on consensus: Part II by stefanthedenier
↧
↧
Comment on Climate models at their limit? by Beth Cooper
Yer sound like a very nice person, CRV9, and keep practisin’ – it’s the only way to forge ahead. A double 
to yer.
↧
Comment on Sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer to added longwave radiative forcing by Steven Mosher
Judith
‘So, if you increase the longwave radiative forcing from CO2, which of the following happens?”
I am assuming that the effect would be the same regardless of the cause of the increase in downwelling longwave?
Interesting choice of 6 models. what do the other 15 or so look like?
I notice they reference Vose 2005 for the GHCN data. Not sure I would pick only that to compare against GCM runs. It only had 71% coverage and a pretty lax definition of temporal completeness. Would be interesting to see how reanalysis data looks.
↧
Comment on Sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer to added longwave radiative forcing by Jim D
If the atmosphere could warm by itself to counteract the radiative effect of CO2, it would. The troposphere, however, has a temperature tied to the surface temperature by the dominant convective process in it, and the only way it can warm is for the surface to warm first. So the radiative imbalance in the troposphere has to be restored by surface warming because of its dependence on that.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by vukcevic
WHT
You are surely talking of the 19th century inquisitive men, not of the ‘cosa nostra’ nouveau science.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by WebHubTelescope
Biofuels are liquid fuels. Biofuels are increasing to fill the gap in declining crude oil resources.
Renewable and alternative energy approaches are necessary to compensate .
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by vukcevic
Paul, phase shift cross over points in your link are in accord with phase shifts in the link I posted.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by maksimovich
Canards are a rigorous mathematical structure that is being used for analysis of the jump points in bifurcation theory for fast-slow generic systems eg J. Guckenheimer and Yu. S. Ilyashenko The Duck and the devil: canards on the staircase. Moscow Math. J., 1:1 (2001), as they pair with attracting and repelling portions on the 2 Torus the proposition holds.for mass displacement.
There is a wide literature on this for the understanding of the relaxation (pullback) attractor to singularities such as volcanic excursions and the temporal delay in ocean heat content.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Canards
The evidence for mass displacement are seen in the arctic satellite alimetry ie a decrease in sea level 2003-2009 that is beyond the steric effects.There are distinct wind regimes (dipolic) in the region eg Proshutinsky 2011,so what is to be determined is the mechanisms for NH melt AGW is not a complete answer as T is limited.
The SH is interesting as the excursions are further northward into differing basins .The increase in Blue Ice in the cryosat validation experiments (physical) show significant variability for so called antarctic mass loss .
The arguments for the Antarctic come with a significant constraint ie if the sea ice decreases the sink will increase efficiency.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by Peter317
gbaikie, how much of that 499 billion kWh goes into street lighting, and how much into business and office lighting – which is already almost exclusively of the relatively efficient fluorescent variety?
Besides, savings in the order of 10% aren’t really going to cut it when they’re calling for 80% emissions cuts.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by Latimer Alder
@web hub telescope
You’ll forgive me if I wonder exactly why the big oil companies should be ‘hiding the decline’? How would this be in their interests.
At least in UK the amount of tax they pay is dependent on the amount produced. So deliberately over-estimating production would have three bad effects for them…they would have less revenue from sales than they pretend, and they would pay more tax than they should. And I’d take a guess that leading people to believe there is more oil around than there actually is would depress rather than increase the sale price. All of these
All in all misreporting production in the way you claim would seem to be entirely counter-productive to the companies.
PS Even if you are right (which seems very unlikely), can you remind me exactly why I should have wet my knickers at the prospect of ‘peak oil’. Much like a bit of ‘global warming’, I find it very hard to work myself into a tizz (let alone give much of a toss) about it.
↧
Comment on Sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer to added longwave radiative forcing by Chief Hydrologist
‘Atmospheric and oceanic forcings are strongest at global equilibrium scales of 10^7 m and seasons to millennia. Fluid mixing and dissipation occur at microscales of 10^−3 m and 10^−3 s, and cloud particulate transformations happen at 10^−6 m or smaller. Observed intrinsic variability is spectrally broad band across all intermediate scales. A full representation for all dynamical degrees of freedom in different quantities and scales is uncomputable even with optimistically foreseeable computer technology. No fundamentally reliable reduction of the size of the AOS dynamical system (i.e., a statistical mechanics analogous to the transition between molecular kinetics and fluid dynamics) is yet envisioned.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Clouds are one of the things that are parameterised quite inadequately – they make up a number for a couple of reasons. The scale of cloud physics is much less than model grids so the physics can’t be represented. The parameterisation schemes are not even consistent between models as there is no fundamental physical theory.
Do they do well?
The critical understanding is that there is a range of solutions that diverge exponentially over time that occur as a result of the underlying maths and the range fesible inputs. There might be a small difference in starting points indistinguisable from and the solutions diverge until they saturate at an unknown limits.
The situation is shown generically here – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=sensitivedependence.gif
The black and red lines repressent solutions at specific times. You can see that they start close together and then diverge. This is an inescapable property of these models.
So if there is a range of feasible solutions how do they pick one for forwarding to the IPCC.
‘AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.’
The ‘component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth’ is one thing. It requires a 1000 times more computing power to be even moderately realistic. The ‘a posteriori solution behavior’ is a bird of another feather entirely. I assume that you recognise that this is a process of choosing a particular solution based on expectations of what the solution should look like rather than anything that might be defined as quantitative.
That’s right they pull it out of their posteriors. Much as Bart does and with quite as much veracity and reliability. Bart is a supercillious activist not adverse to lying, spinning like a top, misdirecting, talking off the top of his head, playing the fool, misrepresenting himself, spouting nonsense etc etc. He has no depth of understanding of anything much as far as I can tell but will dress up his inane posturing with sleights, intimations of moral and intellectual superiority, glib insults and outright lies.
Ignore him – he is simply a noisy distraction little grace, wit or style.
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologiat
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by maksimovich
“Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting. “
This is called limit and is well known with sandcastles eg Bak.The science is neither new eg Thompson (Kelvin) 1872 there is a good example in proceedings of the NZ society(1874)
I have alluded to Phillips’ opinion, because I see in Geikie’s late work that reference is made to the fact that from the foot of glaciers in Greenland streams of water issue and unite to form considerable rivers, one of which, after a course of forty miles, enters the sea with a mouth nearly three-quarters of a mile in breadth—the water flowing freely at a time when the outside sea was thickly covered with ice.
This flow of water, Geikie thinks, probably circulates to some extent below every glacier, and he accounts for it by the liquefaction of ice from the warmth of the underlying soil. I am sure you will find a more natural solution of this flow of water from glaciers—estimated not less than 3000 feet thick—in the suggestion first made by Professor James Thomson, and subsequently proved by his brother, Professor W. Thomson, that the freezing point of water is lowered by the effect of pressure 0.23° Fahr., or about a quarter of a degree for each additional atmosphere of pressure. Now, a sheet of ice 3000 feet thick is equal to a pressure of eighty-three atmospheres, at which pressure it would require a temperature of 19° below freezing point to retain the form of ice. In the state of running water below the glacier, it might readily, as Geikie states, absorb heat from the underlying soil sufficient to retain its liquid form, as the overlying weight gradually lessened at the edge of the glacier. In this, too, we have a safe assurance that these enormous thicknesses of glaciers can exist only where there is scarcely any or no inclination of the land to the sea board, and that no sheets of ice of such enormous thickness could possibly exist on the sides of mountains, as they would have between them and the mountain side a stratum of water; and, to use a common expression, would come down “ on the run
Almost obvious one suspects.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by Chief Hydrologist
Duh. You have been told this by a number of people including myself. But the more recent increases include enhanced recovery and deepwater drilling. There are also finds globally coming into production – including Brazil.
Tar sands, oil from coal, etc, etc. There are enough alternatives to provide increasing production for decades to come.
No having fun anymore webby? Not fair – I can’t insult a defenceless target.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by Girma
Is this Mass Extinction stuff a scare mongering like AGW?
In Australia, we have done everything we can to finish off rats, rabbits, foxes, wild cats and cane toads with no success.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)
Maksimovich,
It terms of mixed mode oscillations, it appears that 2007 may have been the beginning of a delayed Hopf bifurcation, judging by the changes seen in the amplitude of the Arctic sea ice anomaly since that time. In terms of the physical processes involved, this makes perfect sense in that if warmer ocean water is part of the cause of diminished ice, then more open water later into the fall and winter allows for the increased release of this heat. Unfortunately, the key control parameter of the cause of this heat (i.e. anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases) cannot be directly affected via a negative feedback loop, unless of course, the loss of enough ocean ice actually alters global weather patterns enough such that human civilization is impacted enough to somehow bring about a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gases.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by Chief Hydrologist
‘Due to the shape of the graph of Poincar´e map, it follows that the order
of the bifurcations of limit cycles is the following: first we have N births and then we have N deaths. During every birth a pair of cycles appear, therefore the number of canard cycles here is maximal and equal to 2N.’
(Duck farming on the two-torus: multiple canard cycles in generic slow-fast systems – Ilya V. Schurov)
This indeed puts a whole new complexion on things. I shall have to meditate on this new to me idea of 2 torus duck farming and get back to you.
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by Pekka Pirilä
Peter,
Replacing incandescent light bulbs with more efficient lighting cannot solve the whole problem or a really large part of it. There are also additional factors like reduction in the need of energy for air-conditioning as less heat is produced by lighting – or in the case of cold climate the opposite effect that more heating by other sources is needed.
It may be that the timing was not optimal as the compact fluorescent lamps have their problems and led lamps were improving rapidly for reasons not affected by the decision. Whether it was or not, this is one of the easiest steps that have on noticeable effect on energy consumption. Improving the insulation and air-conditioning solutions of new houses to reduce the consumption of energy for air-conditioning, heating or both may be more important in the long run, but retrofitting old houses is much more questionable.
===
Just a side remark. I had strange technical problems in getting the EIA-pages to open yesterday (there is some kind of very selective filter preventing the normal access from my home network to EIA, but not to the rest of DOE, with the help of a proxy-server I can see also the EIA-pages). Circumventing those problems I was able to find more detailed and more up-to-date information on the US electricity production. Choosing the pre.generated table “1.1.A Net Generation by Other Renewables: Total – All Sectors” from
http://www.eia.gov/beta/enerdat/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=02fg&geo=g&sec=g&freq=A
one can see that the rapid increase in renewable energy production was about 30% due to the continuing increase in wind energy production and 70% due to an exceptionally good year for hydro. Solar power generation is so low that it must grow by a factor of more than 50 to reach present wind and more than 400 to equal nuclear.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)
Of course, to see the Arctc sea ice Death spiral one needs to actually attempt to see it by looking at longer term climate data rather than the span of only a few years. In taking a decadal perspective where climate change actually has the chance of appearing, the Arctic death spiral becomes readily apparent:
http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/sia_2.png
Lesson: You have to want to see the truth to actually see it, otherwise you’ll see exactly what you looking for– a reason to deny.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by Peter317
Pekka,
Replacing incandescent light bulbs with more efficient lighting cannot solve the whole problem or a really large part of it
That’s exactly what I was trying to say.
↧
Comment on What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process by Steven Mosher
You’ll want to se teh work that Lucia and arthur Smith did on estimating lags using a two box model. Its not a year. not by a long shot
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
