Oh No! Springer, is on to us. He knows about the conspiracy.
Comment on American Physical Society by Max_OK
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chef Hydrologist
If James Hansen described diffusion of heat from the atmosphere to the oceans I would be surprised. This instead is a bizarre misconception peculiar to webby.
Looking at the actual data – the ‘missing heat’ is entirely the result of albedo change.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Max_OK
Now, APS says the evidence is compelling. I like “compelling” better than “incontrovertible,” because compelling evidence is evidence that calls for action.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Bob
Max OK, you complain about age. I was under the impression that pissant progressives usually don’t discriminate, especially about age. Your delusional if you think any of the people you cite deny the Tyndall effect, deny S-B. What they deny is the only thing any rational scientist would contest, the sensitivity to CO2 forcing. You see Max, without a positive feedback, the whole of CAGW falls on its face. What these brilliant people you denigrate think is that with 1-3 degrees of warming you might get with a doubling of CO2 is no big deal. Can’t hurt, might even help. Put an end to your obnoxious discrimination.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by DocMartyn
I have asked many times why the bottom of the ocean is colder than the top and have been told many time that melting polar ice flows to the bottom of the oceans carrying chilled oxygen rich water.
As we all know, global warming has increased the rate of polar ice melting and so has increased the rate at which frigid waters speed to the ocean depths.
So, if the ice-caps are melting, where did all the missing cold go?
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by manacker
Max_OK
compelling [kəmˈpɛlɪŋ]
adj
1. arousing or denoting strong interest, esp admiring interest
2. (of an argument, evidence, etc.) convincing
Yeah, I’d say that fits better than:
incontrovertible [ˌɪnkɒntrəˈvɜːtəbəl ɪnˌkɒn-]
adj
incapable of being contradicted or disputed; undeniable
Still an overstatement, but less so than before.
Whaddaya think?
Max_CH
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by David Springer
CaptDallas re; climate is chaotic
Au contraire.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/chaos.htm
The meteorological questions that had launched chaos theory remained among the hardest to answer. Some scientists now insisted that the climate system’s intrinsic fluctuations would utterly defeat any attempt to calculate its changes. Thus the 1980 edition of one classic textbook said that predictions of greenhouse effect warming were dubious because of chaotic “autovariations.” Lorenz and others argued that the recently observed global warming might be no evidence of a greenhouse effect or any other external influence, but only a chance excursion in the drunkard’s random walk.(34)
Most scientists agreed that climate has features of a chaotic system, but they did not think it was wholly unpredictable. To be sure, it was impossible to predict well in advance, with any computer that could ever be built in the actual universe, that a tornado would hit a particular town in Texas on a particular day (not because of one guilty butterfly, of course, but as the net result of countless tiny initial influences). Yet tornado seasons came on schedule. That type of consistency showed up in the supercomputer simulations constructed in the 1980s and after. Start a variety of model runs with different initial conditions, and they would show, like most calculations with complex nonlinear feedbacks, random variations in the weather patterns computed for one or another region and season. However, their predictions for global average temperature usually remained within a fairly narrow range under given conditions. Critics replied that the computer models had been loaded with artificial assumptions in order to force them to produce regular-looking results. But gradually the most arbitrary assumptions were pared away. The models continued to reproduce, with increasing precision, many kinds of past changes, all the way back through the ice ages. As the computer work became more plausible, it set limits on the amount of variation that might be ascribed to pure chance.
Weather is chaotic. Climate is not. If we set pot to heating over a flame the eddies and bubbles are chaotic. That’s weather. If we turn the flame up or down the temperature change will accelerate or decelerate. That’s climate. A butterfly’s touch will change the eddies and bubbles. That’s weather. A butterfly’s touch will not prevent the water from getting warmer if we turn up the flame. That’s climate.
Please put a little more thought into differentiating the chaos of weather and the regularity of climate. They are two very different things. Thanks in advance.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Max_OK
I think you didn’t use Webster. He says compelling means
a : forceful
b : demanding attention <for compelling reasons
Attention is an action.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by manacker
Fanny
You ask Willis:
Willis Eschenbach, what is the *skeptical* prediction for sea-level rise — as assessed by altimetry, calorimetry, and gravimetry — in the coming decade?
That’s the wrong question, Fanny.
All these measurement techniques haven’t been around long enough to get a meaningful record, especially for decadal rate of sea level rise, which has varied from -1mm/year to over +5mm/year over the 20th century, as measured by tide gauges.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
The average rate over the 20th C was ~1.7 mm/yr. The rate was ~2.0 mm/yr over the first half of the 20thC and then decreased slightly over the second half of the 20thC to ~1.4 mm/yr.
In addition, in the case of satellite altimetry, the errors have been greater than the rate of increase, according to the NOAA scientists making the measurements.
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU04/05276/EGU04-J-05276.pdf
So let’s reword your question so it makes sense:
what is the *skeptical* prediction for sea-level rise — as assessed by any tried method — in the coming decade?
I can’t speak for willis, but my prediction would be “within the range observed during the past century, i.e. somewhere between -1 mm/year to +5 mm.year”
You can write that down.
Max
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Jim D
Parts of what David Springer says are bang-on, like the weather-climate difference. If only he’d realize that CO2 is like putting a lid on that pot, he would see how CO2 fits into the boiling pot climate analogy. That’s the bit missing. Yes, climate is not affected by chaos, but there are some bi-stable states as we see from the Ice Ages.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by David Springer
Oh crap. I don’t know whether to be flattered or mortified.
I was looking for other discussions of climate and chaos in addition to the AIP article and I ran across this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/
Chaos and Climate by James Annan and William Conneley
I created an analogy with a pot of water heated by a flame to better illuminate the difference. It was wholly my creation having never seen it elsewhere. Lo and behold look what Annan & Cannoli had to say:
Fortunately, the calculation of climatic variables (i.e., long-term averages) is much easier than weather forecasting, since weather is ruled by the vagaries of stochastic fluctuations, while climate is not. Imagine a pot of boiling water. A weather forecast is like the attempt to predict where the next bubble is going to rise (physically this is an initial value problem). A climate statement would be that the average temperature of the boiling water is 100ºC at normal pressure, while it is only 90ºC at 2,500 meters altitude in the mountains, due to the lower pressure (that is a boundary value problem).
Of course my analogy far better as I also worked in how a butterfly’s caress could change the course of a bubble but couldn’t change the course of the water getting warmer.
My analogy was superior mostly because I’m just a naturally grate righter. Be that as it may Annan and Cannonlilly have a commendable grasp of the difference between chaotic weather and regular climate. A grasp that appears to be somewhat lacking amongst the usual suspects on Climate Etc.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by GaryM
“Attention is an action.”
Yeah…uh…no. Attention is a noun/thing. Attend is a verb/action. One clue is the inclusion of the word “noun” in Webster’s entry for the word attention.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Nick Stokes
“In the meantime, I’ll just point out one thing. Included in the “12 icecore items” you referred to are archives like this one. It has two columns, 100 rows each. Thompson received a sizable grant to gather data at a site, and that is what he archived. And he archived that only when forced.”
The archive is the data that formed the basis of a paper in Science (2000) and Climatic Change (2003). Somebody thought decadal resolution of a millenium of Himalayan glacier record was important. He archived it in 2004. Who was forcing him?
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Jim D
I have used the boiling pot analogy here and elsewhere too, once quite recently as I recall.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by manacker
Max_OK
So you “like scientists who tell it like it is (even if it really isn’t that way)”?
Good for you.
I prefer scientists that are objective (like our hostess here) to scientists who are advocates for an agenda.
But, hey, everybody can pick the scientists they like best. It’s a free world.
Max_CH.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Jim D
Re: boiling pot. March 18th I posted this to ksd.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/03/16/open-thread-weekend-11/#comment-303330
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by manacker
Fanny
Don’t do a waffle on me here, Fanny.
The question was NOT
“If Skeptical Science concedes that there has been no net positive energy balance due to warming of either the upper, middle or deep ocean or the surface atmosphere or the troposphere at various altitudes for another decade or two despite unabated human GHG emissions, I suppose that you will be ready to re-evaluate your position on CAGW as well.”
It was
“If Skeptical Science concedes that there has been no net positive energy balance due to warming of either the upper, middle or deep ocean or the surface atmosphere or the troposphere at various altitudes the current lack of warming continues for another decade or two despite unabated human GHG emissions, I suppose that you will be ready to re-evaluate your position on CAGW as well.”
Is the answer still “yes”?
Max
↧
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by manacker
Or how 'bout capitalizing plus bold italics, for emphasis?
<strong><em>SKEPTICS</em></strong>
Maybe I can even add some of Fanny's smileys!
Max
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Beth Cooper
Max
Yr estimate (2008) of remaining 85% of recoverable fossil
fuels means maximum ever CO2 levels from combusting
fossil fuel’s at 980ppmv is reassuring in a sober way, though
we can never be too complaissant about climate change
when we consider the complex interations of the ‘whether’
and the possibility of black swan events.
And while > temperature and CO2 do not correlate but
wouldseem ter walk randomly together, data estimates
of 2xCo2 sensitivity around 2degrees C don’t require
punitive policies fer control.
Fer sequestration of the dreaded CO2, there’s Freeman
Dyson’s arguments fer sequestering by increasing soil
biomass thereby also improving crop productivity. And
of course, there’s more …what with human technical
inventive ingenuity.
jest – a -serf.
↧
Comment on American Physical Society by Chief Hydrologist
Roy seems to have been quite busy on the 14th of Decamber 2012.
‘Chaotic behavior is a characteristic of most nonlinear dynamical systems, that is, systems which evolve over time and are governed by rather complex physical processes. We usually think of chaos in the atmosphere operating on time scales of days to weeks.
But the ocean is also a nonlinear dynamical system. And it has time scales ranging from years up to hundreds or even thousands of years…time scales we associate with climate change.
El Nino and La Nina can, for example, be thought of as a chaotic fluctuation in the climate system. Like the famous butterfly-shaped Lorenz Attractor, El Nino and La Nina are the two wings of the butterfly, and the climate system during Northern Hemisphere winter tends to alternate between El Nino and La Nina, sometimes getting “stuck” in a multi-year pattern of more frequent El Ninos or La Ninas.
Now, while El Nino and La Nina are the best known (and most frequently occurring) ocean-based climate phenomenon, what other longer-term modes of climate variability might there be which are “unforced”?) By unforced, I mean they are not caused by some external forcing mechanism (like the sun), but are just the natural results of how the system varies all by itself.) Well, we really don’t know, partly because so little research is funded to study the problem.
But How Can Chaos Cause “Global Warming”?
It is my belief that most climate variability and even climate change could simply be the result of chaos in the climate system. By how would changing ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns cause “global warming”?
One potential mechanism is through the impact of those circulation changes on cloud formation.
Clouds are the Earth’s natural sunshade, and very small (but persistent) changes in cloud cover can cause either warming or cooling trends. I know that scientists like Trenberth and Dessler like to claim that “clouds don’t cause climate change”…well, chaotic changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns can change clouds, and so in that sense clouds act as an intermediary. Of course clouds don’t change all by themselves, which is how some people disingenuously characterize my position on this.’ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/12/our-chaotic-climate-system/
Chaos is a little more problematical than simple projections of a linear increase no matter how small.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
