Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Greg Goodman

0
0

Hey Mosh, this has nothing to do with “sun nuts”, just look at the data , Met. Office nuts and NOAA nuts for example:

http://i49.tinypic.com/xbfqtw.png

which part of “up and down” are you finding it hard to follow?


Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by Doug Cotton

0
0
This week saw the article <i>The Greenhouse Gas Blanket that Fails to Warm the World</i> (which John O'Sullivan and I wrote) published at <i>Principia Scientific International</i> under "Latest News." Basically it covers the main conclusions from my research, so I refer you to it in response to any questions you may have regarding my various comments on this site.

Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by Steven Mosher

0
0

Seriously, david you have no idea what you are talking about.
The satillite product is not an observation. A satillite observation is a voltage from a sensor. That voltage is transformed into a ‘data product’ using physics, statistical models ( like regression) and ‘adjustments’.
ontologically its no different than a average (model) of the Air surface temperature.

And when push comes to shove you trust them. You won’t admit you trust them. but you do. you rely on them daily

Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Nabil Swedan

0
0

Erica,
This is not an alleged cooling; it is a fact that scares the proponents of the main-stream science. The cooling would be impossible to explain with the greenhouse gas effect. I gave couple of references above. You can also research on your own, and there is plenty of studies that document the cooling. The cooling of the atmosphere is an undisputed fact, and the atmosphere is not warming as they say.
Take a look at the record of the earth as documented in the Antarctic Ice core samples. Surface warming due to CO2 has had an upper limit of 16 to 18 degrees C. It always stopped, naturally, and this present warming will stop as well when carbon dioxide deposits as dry ice. The cooling as well as the upper limits can be calculated mathematically. If you are interested, click on my name and go to Article-2, conservation of the earth’s exchanged energy.

Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

You are a noxious and ignorant troll. You are a fraud when it comes to pretending to knowledge that you don’t have and a liar when representing your posts as not containing overtly abusive language. As I have said before – when not being passive/aggressive you are deliberately abusive. No one is fooled by this.

To quote myself – Blah Blah Dum is another. He copies and pastes things that he believes says something different to what it actually means and imagines thereby to score some victory over the infidels. In his own fervid imaginings only. He pretends to knowledge he does not possess. He pretends to be an expert in everything. He insults and berates and goes all injured innocence when replied to in the same vein.

Your transparent tactics and empty words deserve no respect or consideration and none will be given in the jungle that is climate etc. You will be exposed again and again as the fool, fraud and liar that you are.

Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

0
0

Steven, that seems to be an exercise in futility, especially since I prefer nets and more realistic frames of reference..

Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Greg Goodman

0
0

http://i49.tinypic.com/xudsy.png

From 1997 to 2007 there was an accelerating melting in the Arctic.

That has FINISHED. Previous oscillatory behaviour appears to be re-established.

Warning: this graph was created by cherry-picking ALL the available data, not just one day per year, so it may be misleading. ;)

Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by Mark B (number 2)

0
0

“What percentage of the recent [sea ice] decline would you attribute to anthropogenic greenhouse gases?”

The question is wrong. There should really be 3 separate questions:
1. How much warming has occurred since a particular year?
2. What percentage of the current warming can be attributed to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
3. What percentage loss of sea ice can be attributed to the warming?

I remember that Dr Curry estimated 10%, as the answer to question 2, a few months ago.
To a casual observer, who has not seen how the original question has been worded, Dr Curry’s answer to the original question gives a false impression (from her view point) that carbon dioxide emissions have actually caused about 50% of the warming.


Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

@springer

Will this go here? I have read it long ago. But albedo is usually defined as the proportion of reflected short wave.

‘In more technical treatments of albedo, such as that of de Pater and Lissauer, a distinction is made between “bond albedo” and “geometric albedo”, the numbers quoted above being geometric albedos. The geometric albedo is defined as the amount of radiation relative to that from a flat Lambertian surface which is an ideal reflector at all wavelengths. The bond albedo is the total radiation reflected from an object compared to the total incident radiation from the Sun. The bond albedo for the Earth is given as 0.29 by de Pater and Lissauer, compared to their value of 0.37 for the geometrical albedo.’ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html

What we have is the idea that CO2 changes the geometric albedo by ‘trapping’ IR. The atmosphere reaches a higher temperature almost immediately – indeed anthropogenic CO2 emissions are at a very high temperature at emission – and emits more IR. The oceans accumulate energy as IR losses across the skin decrease. The question is how long it takes the oceans to equilibriate with the new atmospheric state?

Pretty quickly as far as I can see – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=Wong2006figure7.gif (see – http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf)

The bond albedo doesn’t change – the geometric albedo doesn’t change when the conditional energy equilibrium is restored.

Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by manacker

0
0

lolwot

“Radiative physics”?

Whodat?

“2xCO2 results in 3.7 Wm-2 forcing.”

We know how that was derived (check Myhre et al.).
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/17/week-in-review-111712/#comment-268761

You will see that this figure is derived based on theoretical deliberations plus spectral band data for CO2 from HITRAN-1996.

Other estimates have been made by Hansen, Shi and Lindzen.

Translating these to temperature impact we have a 2xCO2 range of 0.65C to 1.2C. IPCC uses 3.7 Wm-2 which equates roughly to 1C.

Everything else is model-based feedbacks and hype.

Max

Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by WebHubTelescope

0
0

David Wojick,
It would be wise of you to update your teaching curriculum to explain how the correct interpretation of sensitive spectroscopic instrumentation measurements implies AGW.

You don’t want to teach the kids garbage, do you?

Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by Jim D

0
0

You can just discuss the 3.7 W/m2. It is equivalent to
- a 1% solar increase
- about 20 times a solar 11-year cycle in TSI
- about 5-10 times the reduction in the LIA

Most would agree this would be significant in climate.

Comment on Future of Arctic enterprise by SystemProgrammer

0
0

We were talking about the Arctic, so are you saying that J.C is wasting her time discussing it and we are heading for a lia – so it is all a complete waste of time developing it is that what you are saying:

Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by manacker

0
0

Steven Mosher

I was with you on your post #269326 to david from:

“The radiative physics used in satillite products is the same radiative physics that tells us that doubling c02 results in 3-4 additional watts of forcing.”

to

“With no feedbacks you can figure that out. around 1.2C”

Actually, when I figure it out I get 1C (but let’s not quibble about 0.2C).

Incidentally, Richard Lindzen figures this out at 0.65C, but let’s stick with your number.

Where you seem to get off track IMO is when you write:

“if you practice science, you’ll see that the vast majority of evidence suggests positive feedback.”

I’d suggest you check out Spencer + Braswell 2006 or Lindzen + Choi 2009, with the 2011 correction. [These are guys who "practice science", as you put it.]

Here we have physical observations using CERES and ERBE satellites that indicate a net negative feedback, with 2xCO2 CS of 0.6C to 0.7C with all feedbacks.

You cite paleo data but, Steve, you know how subjective interpretation of dicey paleo proxy data from carefully selected time periods of our planet’s geological past are hardly better than reading tea leaves when it comes to estimating attribution. Too many uncertainties.

You cite long-term studies based on actual observations, but I have not seen any of these. Care to cite references? How do they determine attribution? What I have seen is model simulations, but these are only as good as the assumptions that are fed in.

We do have one set of data: the HadCRUT3 temperature record since 1850 (warts and all) and the Mauna Loa CO2 record since 1959.

There is also the salt core CO2 measurements prior to 1959.

Then we have the IPCC estimate that over the 1750-2005 time period all anthropogenic factors other than CO2 (other GHGs, aerosols, etc.) cancelled one another out, so that RF from CO2 = total anthropogenic RF. Let’s take IPCC’s word for it.

The only unknown then is natural (incl. solar) forcing.

IPCC considers only direct solar irradiance and estimates that this was only 7% of the total forcing (1750-2005), conceding a “low level of scientific understanding of natural (solar) forcing”. Several solar studies estimate that around 50% of the warming can be attributed to the unusually high 20th century solar activity (highest in several thousand years).

So, using these two estimates, we calculate that the 2xCO2 temperature response over the 150+ year period was between 0.8C and 1.4C or 1.1C+/-0.3C.

Now THAT’s a LONG-TERM record, right?

And it’s based on actual physical observations.

So I’d argue that actual long-term physical observations would support a weakly negative to weakly positive overall net feedback.

Comments?

Max

Comment on Whither (wither?) climate science? by R. Gates

0
0

And here’s a EP Flux chart for this event:

http://i47.tinypic.com/35au2s4.jpg

As you can see, just as we saw for the 2009 SSW in the northern hemisphere, a large amount of energy is going up into the stratosphere. This was a major SH event and did in fact split the Antarctic vortex. Notice also what happened at the equator at the same time:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2002.gif

See the cold air extending downward in the stratosphere at the beginning of October 2002 at the equator. This was directly related to the SSW event going on a few days earlier at the South Pole! These are major hemispherical events. A lot of energy is involved. Excactly how much? Stay tuned…


Comment on Whither (wither?) climate science? by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4

0
0

R. Gates, ” That southern ocean is a huge heat sink, and you just don’t get as much energy making it down to the south pole!”

This might interest you,

Giss LOTI regional 44-64S highlight from 1900
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-A-zUL62VR7g/UKqOo6Hq3LI/AAAAAAAAFuE/zce_hbJuEnQ/s883/giss%2520regional%2520with%2520trend%25201904.png

Then same thing from 1980,

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-bcbV00zTNBg/UKqOo-dkJQI/AAAAAAAAFuA/CAEJI-fHw8c/s912/giss%2520regional%2520with%2520trend%25201980.png

Comment on Whither (wither?) climate science? by David Springer

0
0

With an as yet undetermined appendage Tom Bogdan writes:

“STOP FIGHTING THE LAST LOST WAR – Spend less energy battling skeptics”

Fixed that for him!

Comment on Whither (wither?) climate science? by Kiwi

0
0

Thank you for so generously and graphically illuminating my whole point

Comment on Whither (wither?) climate science? by manacker

0
0

“Something must be done! It is urgent”
[i.e. following the "precautionary principle"]

Not really.

For three reasons.

1. We are uncertain about how much of the past warming was caused by natural factors and how much by human GHGs (principally CO2)
2. We do not have any actionable proposals for mitigation projects that will have any perceptible impact on future climate, even if we assume that the IPCC model-based climate sensitivity assumptions are correct.
3. We must be absolutely sure that the unintended negative consequences of any actions we do undertake are not more damaging to humanity than the problem we are trying to resolve.

Until we remove the uncertainty in 1. above, we should do nothing.

Rash “actionism” is foolish. It is costly and gets you into unexpected trouble.

Calmly decreasing uncertainty on causes, on actionable and effective proposals plus on unintended negative consequences is the reasonable path to pursue.

Max

Comment on Week in review 11/17/12 by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Hi Max,

The PDO is related to ENSO. For instance – ‘This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.’ http://www.agu.org/journals/abs/2006/2005GL025052.shtml

If you take the ENSO dragon-kings of 1976/77 and 1998/01 out – there is not much warming left. Kyle Swanson did it here – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/ – leaving a residual of about 0.1 degrees C/decade. The residual is the ‘true global warming signal’ according to Swanson – but that isn’t what the satellites say.

One of the problems with F&R, Lean and Rind, etc – is that if they are not in accordance with the TOA data – it all seems like whistling in the dark.

As for BVD – he rejects two different NASA sites, the IPCC, peer reviewed science up the kazoo, realclimate, etc to mistakenly rely on a WFT graph. Then goes on to be over the top abusive. Amazing isn’t it?

Cheers

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images