The elliptical orbit causes a solar variation of 6%, so that should show up, and being integrated the peak would be in April. The point of showing J/m2 is that it would be the correct way to integrate W/m2 over time. What do you have there, Watt-months/m2?
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on The debate: my presentation by franktoo
No, Robert, I didn’t forget Planck response. When CERES is observing the change in OLR in response to seasonal changes in temperature, it is observing the sum of Planck response, water vapor feedback and lapse rate feedback when looking at clear skies and the sum of those three plus LWR cloud feedback when looking at cloudy skies. The data is very linear and definitive that the planet emits 2.2 W/m2/K more LWR as it seasonally warms. This is a response to warming in the NH and cooling in the SH, not “global warming” and therefore needs to be interpreted with caution. It implies ECS would be 1.7 K/doubling if there were no SWR feedback.
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/19/7568/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568 (Tsushima and Manabe, 2013)
The SWR response to seasonal warming is not highly linear, shows some lagged components, and some features not relevant to global warming. Since the SH has little land with seasonal snow cover, the positive feedback in SWR reflected through clear skies is mostly the result of geography and unlikely to tell us about how global warming will change reflection of SWR.
The paper also shows how AOGCMs predict LWR emitted and SWR reflected from clear and cloudy skies should change with seasonal warming. Those predictions are clearly wrong, except for LWR from clear skies. Clearly AOGCMs aren’t up to the challenge of properly representing feedbacks and therefore climate sensitivity.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Wagathon
“The currently used reference level 1850–1900 [the ‘reference level’ baseline] represents… represents the coldest phase of the last 10,000 years” and, solar activity in the latter half of the 20th century was the most active in 3,000 years. Put it altogether and you’ve dished up a heaping helping of hot, scientific malarkey.
↧
Comment on The debate: my presentation by Robert I. Ellison
And yet it doesn’t figure in your narrative – the change in net outgoing all sky radiant flux is not remotely 2.2W/m2 – and the energy changes show up primarily in the oceans and not the surface. Following and very quickly changes in net flux.
You don’t get a second chance.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
That imbalance averages out to nearly 1 W/m2. CO2 alone provides 2 W/m2. Just saying.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
This is now all over the place. I can’t keep up.
But just finally – it is a cumulative radiant flux imbalance at toa. I could multiply it by a constant to get Joules but that doesn’t advance the point any. It should and it does co-vary with ocean heat. The correlation is 0.8.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
Power flux imbalances change from negative to positive on an annual basis. The average is 0.8W/m2 – consistent with rates of ocean warming. The trend over the period of record is negative. Such large swings in imbalances cannot be due to greenhouse gases.
The result is a very large annual variation in energy from the Sun – the energy in component. Annual variability has significant implications for ocean heat change. Ocean heat does not change slowly as a result of greenhouse gases and thermal inertia but warms and cools rapidly in response to the very large annual signal.
2W/m2 as I gave said to yet again below assumes no response in the system – but the system has of course responded and the energy imbalance from greenhouse gases is not remotely 2W/m2. If there is energy equilibrium on an annual basis – and there is – the current greenhouse gas energy imbalance is at most 0.03W/m2. This is an order of magnitude less than obtained by assuming that all ocean warming is anthropogenic – it is not.
You may repeat your memes as much as you like endlessly it seems. But no you are wrong. And I resent needing to quote for the likes of you from something I wrote to show that your would be gotcha points have been considered and discussed.
↧
Comment on The debate: my presentation by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #319 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Voices of reason in the ‘climate wars’ by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #319 | Watts Up With That?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by astroclimateconnection
The whole argument about what is driving natural climate change is about to be turned on its head.
The rate-of-change in mean global atmospheric temperature is a much better indicator of climate forcings than just the mean temperature.
If you filter-out periods in the rate-of-change in the global mean temperature that are less than 7 years, you find that there are periodic warming events that can be simply explained using the 9.1-year and 20.3-year cycles in the lunar tidal strength caused by extreme Perigean Spring tides.
The simple reason for this is that extreme Perigean Sring tides that align with the Equinoxes and Solstices coincide with the times where the times where the lunar-induced variations in the Earth’s rotational acceleration change sign. The most extreme of these events produce Kelvin-like waves that propagate along the Earth’s (Coriolis) equator in the form of Madden-Julian Oscillations (MJO’s). It is these that periodically trigger El Nino events that play an important role in the overall warming and cooling of the Earth.
Paper I – Published
Ian Robert George Wilson* and Nikolay S Sidorenkov, A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate I: Centennial Times Scales, J Earth Sci Clim Change 2018, 9:2
Paper II – out soon
Ian Robert George Wilson* and Nikolay S Sidorenkov, A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate II: Extreme Perigean New/Full Moons and El Niño Events
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
Sucking CO2 from air is cheaper than thought [link]
They wrote:
In the end, the economics of CO2 extraction will depend on factors that vary by location, including the price of energy and whether or not a company can access government subsidies.
CO2 causes known good. No proof that CO2 causes harm has ever been provided.
Removing CO2 from the air is damaging the growth of green plants and the taking of taxes to pay subsidies is damaging our economy and damages our energy production. The tax money should be spent on something useful, not something harmful.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by afonzarelli
And thanx to <b>all</b> of you bloggers and contributors for all that <b>you</b> do (<b><i>WOWZA!!!</i></b>)...
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
To a large extent, grass develops deep roots or not depending on if it was not watered too much or was watered too much. When you water too much grass does not develop deep roots and cannot live long without watering. A neighbor of ours, watered regular, when they moved, the new neighbor did not water and the grass died, it took several years but the grass gradually came back without watering.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
In the end, the economics of CO2 extraction will depend on factors that vary by location, including the price of energy and whether or not a company can access government subsidies.
I hope they realize that Sucking CO2 from the air is dumber than dirt and stop doing it.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
electricity for carbon capture What a waste, spend money to damage how green plants grow.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by afonzarelli
.03 W/m2?!
Robert, are you saying that the expected 2 W/m2 has been reduced to .03 W/m2 because of, what, negative feedbacks? (or am i not understanding something here?)
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
astroclimateconnection: The rate-of-change in mean global atmospheric temperature is a much better indicator of climate forcings than just the mean temperature.
Please let us know when the second paper appears. And how well the modeling results hold up in future data.
Meanwhile, what do you think of this one?
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/6/eaao5297.full.pdf
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
popesclimatetheory: electricity for carbon capture What a waste, spend money to damage how green plants grow.
…
I hope they realize that Sucking CO2 from the air is dumber than dirt and stop doing it.
I doubt that anyone can suck out enough to have much effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration in the next 100 years. But continuous development of technologies to manufacture liquid fuels is a good idea. And so is continuous development of nuclear power technology.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Peter Lang:
What do you think of this project?
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/06/indonesia-and-thorcon-continue-working-towards-thorium-reactor.html
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
That’s the annual increase in greenhouse gas forcing. Whether that results in larger energy imbalances at TOA depends on the time that it takes oceans to equilibriate. The so-called warming in the pipeline due to thermal inertia. Thermal inertia is of course a real thing – but the boundary conditions include both very small increment of greenhouse gas warming – and very large changes due to annual orbital variability. The oversimplified math of estimates of ‘eddy diffusion’ neglects the very rapid annual heating and cooling of oceans. The range of estimates of ‘eddy diffusion’ is even greater that the uncertainty of clouds. Somewhere between a year and a 1000 years. Physically the processes of heat transport in the oceans are fast involving turbulent mixing and convection. -.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
