Articles on this Page
- 12/16/18--20:08: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--20:13: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--20:23: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--20:35: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--20:50: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--20:51: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--22:53: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--23:02: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--23:47: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--23:49: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/16/18--23:56: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/17/18--00:03: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/17/18--00:43: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/17/18--01:00: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/17/18--01:04: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/17/18--02:55: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/17/18--04:43: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--05:53: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--05:56: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--06:03: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/17/18--02:55: Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by JCH
- 12/17/18--04:43: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dr. Strangelove
- 12/17/18--05:53: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 12/17/18--05:56: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 12/17/18--06:03: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
Oh for god's sake. All I did was accumulate the average monthly energy imbalance - that changes mostly in outgoing energy - on the same time scale as Argo. Easy enough to put it in zeta Joules.
Although this one shows energy accumulating in the system but not at the surface. Hmmmm... so it must be in the oceans. That's conservation of energy.
If #jiminy ever got past reiterating and misrepresenting basic physics and neglecting the rest it would be a Christmas miracle.
Regarding the two papers that you cited:
In the first paper sulfate aerosols are considered to have only a cooling effect. However, when they are removed from the atmosphere, WARMING will naturally occur, because of the cleaner, more transparent air.
With respect to warming due to black carbon, I have seen no evidence that it actually causes any changes in average global temperatures. Possibly some minor local effects.
However, all temporary changes in average global temperatures can be associated with increasing or decreasing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
The gradual rise in temperatures since circa 1975 has been due to natural recovery from the LIA (.05 deg C./decade), and reductions in Anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions due to Clean Air efforts ,with emissions falling from 139 Megatons in 1979, to ~80 Megatons today. because of the cleansing of the air.
Steven Sherwood has been around Australian hydrology for a while - but this is a puff piece not aimed at serious hydrologists.
This is where I sourced my graph. You might find that it goes well beyond the simple conceptual relationship between precipitation and evaporation discussed by Sherwood.
Nor is it likely that models can predict regional rainfall in 2100 - or that we have much of a handle on the limits of natural variability.
Robert I. Ellison:
You wrote "There are two papers. The one you didn't read with any attention to detail discusses cloud change over the Pacific as the major cause..."
For cloud changes to occur, there first has to be a driving force, which is increased warming of the Earth's surface due to greater intensity of the sun's radiation. This increased intensity is the result of reduced atmospheric SO2 levels (cleaner air), the cause of all El Ninos.
Do you understand the difference between accumulating a flux and the flux itself. It's the difference between a sine and a cosine. Integration is the key word you need to look up. Plot the unintegrated flux against the temperature to see what I mean about a lag.
Irrelevant twaddle that I will ignore.
Brian asks: "What is the sensitivity of this natural feedback to temperature in terms of W/m^2 per degree STT anomaly. Why don’t I see it? Am I missing something?"
Nope. The increased emission of OLR and reflection of SWR per degK of warming - the overall climate feedback parameter (W/m2/K) - is the fundamental unanswered question in climate science. Only the concept is usual expressed as the reciprocal (K/(W/m2)) and then W/m2 is converted to doublings of CO2 (3.6? W/m2 = 1 doubling). That gives equilibrium climate sensitivity (K/doubling). The climate feedback parameter is the sum of Planck feedback and all of the other feedbacks written with a negative sign for power lost by the planet. A climate feedback parameter of -1, -2 or -3 W/m2/K is an ECS of 3.6, 1.8 or 1.2 K/doubling. One might say that a graybody with a temperature of 288 K and emissivity of 0.61 has a "climate feedback parameter" of -3.3 W/m2/K, which is very near the -3.2 W/m2/K obtained from climate models when no other feedbacks are allowed.
Jim D wrote: "The big assumption in the use of EBMs for ECS is that once you add in the imbalance, you get the full ECS."
Given that most photons leaving the planet are emitted from the upper troposphere, I'd say that the temperature there is most relevant to ECS. However, lapse rate feedback is expected to make warming there greater than at the surface, so you would need to correct for that problem to get an ECS relevant to surface warming.
Do you understand the difference between energy and power? 1 W over one second is one Joule. Multiplying by a constant too difficult a concept? You need to mess about with trivialities instead?
Well obviously he needs to let us know he going to ignore it.
ENSO is a stochastically forced charge/recharge oscillator - La Nina cause El Nino. And ENSO causes cloud changes anti-correlated with SST.
And I am not having a go at Steven Sherwood. It is a so-called science communication piece and not actually hydrological science. That JCH and #jiminy can't tell the difference is not a surprise.
The change in energy content of the oceans is measured as changes in temperature. What causes ocean heat to change is the power flux imbalance.
I think I know what the problem is. jiminy's wild, post hoc cognitively dissonant, motivated reasoning.
The average is 0.8 W/m2 - and frankly I don't know what he is whining about.
And when you think about sin and cos waves being exactly the same just out of phase - and that what is happening is differentiation rather than integration - you realize that either he is treating the readership here as mathematically dismal or is so himself.
d(H&W)/dt = energy in - energy out
Where H&W in the first differential global energy equation is heat and work.
Nic wrote: "For the tropics (20S-20N), where solar energy input and ocean temperatures are highest, regressing TOA outgoing LW radiation per CERES data (2001-13) on surface temperature, using detrended and deseasonalised data, gave an increase of 4.05 W/m2/K".
Thanks for the reply. My problem with detrended and deseasonalized data is that the changes are so small making the confidence interval wide (and potentially subject to systematic error). -4.05 W/m2/K is +/-0.82 for CERES (smaller than I expected), -3.0+/-3.3 for ERBE and -4.0+/-1.5 when analyzed by Lindzen and Choi. When I look at the scatter in the data in M&S(2015) Figure 2a, my training in hard sciences with definitive well-controlled experiments rightly or wrongly makes it hard for me to take the slope seriously. There is much less uncertainty in the seasonal change, because the changes are huge and clearly linear.
It is clear that we want to know about feedbacks during global warming, not during warming in the NH and cooling in the ocean-dominated SH (seasonal warming). It is also clear that the tropical response is underweighted in seasonal warming. However, we need more than 20S to 20N also. The greatest value in looking at the feedbacks in response to seasonal warming is that they prove AOGCMs don't get these feedbacks right and AOGCMs are mutually inconsistent with each other. In particular, LWR feedback from all and clear skies is equal in observations, but there is positive LWR cloud feedback in models. If I had 1/100 of your data analysis skills, I would look at the feedbacks to seasonal warming in various regions: latitude, ocean vs land, areas where boundary layer clouds are important, and areas with extremely high clouds that cause the most warming. With tight confidence intervals, one might have strong evidence about what processes AOGCMs are getting wrong, and which way they are biased. The scientific method is to attempt to invalidate hypotheses and an AOGCM is a sophisticated hypothesis about how our climate system behaves. Rather than declare AOGCMs invalid, Tsushima and Manabe merely say the information can be used to improve AOGCMs, but I think they need a better idea of what needs improving. Perhaps they have surveyed these possibilities and not published.
The SWR response to seasonal warming is non-linear with temperature and therefore isn't really a feedback. But it is still diagnostic from how well AOGCMs reproduce observed seasonal changes in SWR. Many others report lagged SWR response, but the surface albedo and cloud albedo response aren't likely to have the same lag. If about half of the sky is cloudy due to rising air masses and about half clear due to subsiding air masses (and there is no reason for the ratio to change as temperature rises), won't cloud SWR feedback be near zero? (IIRC, boundary layer clouds are not due to rising air, so they would be in a separate category.) When I look at M&S(2015) Figure 2b, I translate +1, +2, +3 and +4 W/m2/K in SWR feedback into 1%, 2%, 3% and 4%/K, and then extrapolate to 3 degK of AGW or -6 degK at the LGM. Those are massive changes.
Wonder if Sherwood thinks you're serious? Lol.
RE: Outer space may have gotten a bit closer
The Karman line is arbitrary because an aircraft's lift not only depends on speed but also on its weight, wing area and wing shape. A "flying wing" aircraft with air flaps made of carbon fiber can fly higher than convention jets. The X-15 rocket plane had small wings that's why it can't fly higher than 80 km. Orbiting satellites below 100 km can't fly even at 10 km because they don't have wings. They have to attain orbital speed or they fall to the ground.
The boundary to space should be independent of aeronautical engineering. I propose the thermosphere as the beginning of space (above 85 km). Nothing to do with airplanes and satellites. Thermosphere has a characteristic of space where gas molecules are so diluted that kinetic temperature can reach 2500 C while thermometer temperature is below 0 C.
Your 30% and 15% make sense in the case of a 22% marginal Federal rate and a roughly 8% FICA rate. The qualified dividends and long term capital gains rate is mostly 15%, it collapses at higher incomes in some cases being 23.8%. It didn't used to go from 15% to 23.8%. At higher incomes, it does now. NIIT.
My argument, and it's all subjective is, corporations pay their own tax and then pay out dividends. Double taxation. Long term capital gains can be sales of stock (of a corporation) from an after tax account, but you also get that from the sale of your cabin or rental housing you own. What's the justification for the lower rate then? Let's make something up. Because you owned something for a long time, more than a year, you deserve a break. Or we want people to invest in real estate. Provide affordable housing. Which is another thing, the demand for ½ priced housing is infinite. Do the math. Not quite infinite but close. It's a good scam. I can keep that one going for another 50 years. Chuckle head economics. We should all live in government provided housing like they do in the inner cities. Except for that's for someone else. Not my family.
If you can't beat them, join them. Consider investing after tax money and get some of your own qualified dividends and their currently nice tax rates. Are you sitting only on your 401(k) balance? Wait until these boomers start with drawing that money. Mega tax revenues.
Canadians pay less. I blame it on our swamp. Trump isn't always wrong. It's easy to blame only the Republicans and Trump. That's wrong.
Our system is broken. The Democrats ran on pre-existing conditions in 2018. I am not sure they cared more about the problem. I think they just were looking for a winning issue. I see the self employed paying family premiums of $20000 a year for high deductible health plans. We can't blame that on the insurane companies. Okay, we can't assign more than 10% of the blame to the insurance companies. Make that 15%. We need to find the problem. Strangely, Trump might be the one to do that. Even by blowing things up. Donald Trump meets healthcare. Might work.