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

Comment on What exactly are we debating? by manacker

0
0

[Re-posted with corrected formatting - please delete earlier comment]

Webby

Let’s go through that again – this time using the IPCC AR4 approach rather than your “ad hoc” method.

1.0C = No feedback 2xCO2 impact (Myhre et al.)

In AR4 WG1, Chapter 8 (p.630) IPCC states that the multi-model mean forcing and standard deviation for each feedback in W/m^2 °C is:
Water vapor +1.80 ±0.18
Lapse rate -0.84 ±0.26
Albedo +0.26 ± 0.08
Clouds +0.69 ± 0.38

On p.631 IPCC states:

“The water vapor feedback is, however, closely related to the lapse rate feedback, and the two combined result in a feedback parameter of approximately 1 W/m^2, corresponding to an amplification of the basic temperature response by approximately 50%.”

This would translate into a temperature response of 1.5*1.0°C = 1.5°C, excluding the feedbacks from clouds or surface albedo.

Including all feedbacks except clouds, IPCC estimates (p.633)

”…it can be estimated that in the presence of water vapour, lapse rate and surface albedo feedbacks, but in the absence of cloud feedbacks, current GCMs would predict a climate sensitivity (±1 standard deviation) of roughly 1.9°C ± 0.15°C (ignoring spread from radiative forcing differences). The mean and standard deviation of climate sensitivity estimates derived from current GCMs are larger (3.2°C ± 0.7°C) essentially because the GCMs all predict a positive cloud feedback but strongly disagree on its magnitude”

So, out of the mean estimate of 3.2°C, roughly 1.3°C are based on the predicted strongly positive net feedback from clouds.

IPCC does concede that ”cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty” [AR4 WG1 SPM, p.12]

Two studies since then have cleared up some of this “uncertainty”:

Spencer & Braswell (2007) showed a strongly negative overall cloud feedback with warming over the tropics, based on CERES satellite observations.

Wyant et al. (2006) used a model study using superparameterization to better simulate the behavior of clouds; this study also showed a strongly negative net overall cloud feedback at all latitudes (about the same order of magnitude as the positive feedback predicted by the IPCC models).

Correcting the IPCC AR4 estimate for this later data on the cloud feedback would put 2xCO2 ECS at around 1.0°C to 1.5°C.

On top of this, Webby, there have been several new studies (some at least partially based on actual observations, rather than simply model predictions), all of which suggest a much lower 2xCO2 ECS than was predicted by the models cited by IPCC in AR4. The average of these is around 1.6 °C, or around half the mean value predicted in AR4.

So I think you need to rework your calculation, Webby.

Max


Comment on What exactly are we debating? by manacker

0
0

Bart R

Net harm starts now?

When?

January of this year?

Ten years ago, when temperature was slightly higher than today?

1998 (or 2005, depending on which source of data is used), when the highest temperature was reached?

Gimme a break, Bart. You cannot show that any harm has occurred to date.

It’s all hot air from you, as usual.

Max

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by WebHubTelescope (@whut)

0
0

Konnie, You can’t just use words and ignore the math. I realize that you don’t believe in averages, but if the effect is as big as you claim, you should be able to derive it in a few steps.

The great physicists of any era could do this, as well as the physics professors of any decent school. You obviously are not of that caliber unless you can derive a first order calculation of the effect that you would expect to see..

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by mosomoso

0
0

Murdoch may never be popular in Australia, but he is closer to Australians than many of his detractors here.

Some years ago we had a news revolution in our rural district. The local agency was acquired by urban Lesbian tree-changers who had strong views. They decided to promote the Fairfax broadsheet Sydney Morning Herald and, because we have a large aboriginal population, national indigenous periodicals. Businesses were deliberately under-supplied with Murdoch papers and the local Argus. We were to be educated!

No matter how many wasteful returns were done on the Fairfax and indigenous stuff, nobody could explain to the ladies that Murdoch’s Telegraph and the local Argus were exactly what country people and aborigines wanted. The local Dungutti were utterly uninterested in Northern Territory and Kimberley aborigines. They wanted the local court reports and bush footy from the Argus, and they wanted Murdoch’s Telegraph for its NRL footy and sensationalism. Aboriginal people in my area live for Rugby League, but they also just like to read without having to wrestle with a great tangle of paper and earnest prose.

Anyway, the tree-changing opinion changers went broke. The Sydney Morning Herald is now a – blush! – tabloid and Fairfax are almost broke. But Murdoch is still there, and our locals still have something to read which they actually feel like reading. Give me Murdoch’s cunningly manipulative trash any day over Fairfax’s clumsily manipulative snobbismo. The good thing about Murdoch is that the public knows what he’s up to, and he knows they know – but that they can’t resist!

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by manacker

0
0

Bart R

Not to kick your soap box out from under you, but:

IPCC has defined the “C” word for us, when it comes to AGW.

You write:

The tyranny of those few free riders who declare they can change the air, the temperature, the storms, the very sky, of the rest of us for lucrative personal gain, at cost to us all, how does that not stir a sense of injustice in you? Even if they minimize the degree of what effect science tells us they must have in their advertising campaigns with honeyed words, how is it not tyranny?

This is all a bit too foggy and emotional for me, Bart.

We are ALL using energy, some maybe more or less than others. Certainly those individuals living in the poorest and least industrially developed nations are using less than you or me. I feel pity for them and hope they will some day have access to a reliable source of low cost energy, as you and I do, which will help pull them out of the abject poverty and short, brutal lives they now suffer. The Chinese and Indians (among others) are now going through this transition, increasing their per capita fossil fuel use and CO2 generation in the process.

So we are ALL directly or indirectly generating CO2, which causes GH warming and (according to IPCC) represents a serious threat to humanity and our environment (the “C” in “CAGW”).

Who are these “few free riders” you are accusing of “tyranny” and getting so excited about? Guys like Al Gore, whose “carbon footprint” is hundred times greater than yours and mine combined? Or your President, who uses Air Force One for excursions, like the average family uses the family car? Or the CEOs of large corporations, who jet about in their company Lear jets? Powerful, rich people have larger “carbon footprints” than the average guy. That’s life.

I fail to see what you are getting so worked up about.

Nobody “owes” you anything, Bart. Anymore than they “owe” me anything. This is a fantasy on your part, as far as I can see. One that makes you feel righteously indignant at some imagined wrongdoing by others, when, in actual fact, you have been the benefactor of having a reliable source of low-cost energy to improve your quality of life.

Max

Max

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Beth Cooper

0
0

Hey Faustino yer in moderation??/!!)
How can that be? And u an advocate of
open society discussion and an exemplar
of courteous debate. Word press, wot’s
goin’ on?
Btcg.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Beth Cooper

0
0

Say Max,
That wuz in Summertime, not now.Things change.
Beth.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Peter Lang


Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Konrad

0
0

@WHUT
Konnie???

So what should I call you? “’scope boi”? How about “My little pony”? Raise your sparkly tail and bite the pillow, because I’m tired of your warmist neighing.

“You can’t just use words and ignore the math.”
Empirical experiments talk, BS walks.

“You obviously are not of that caliber (sic)”
I am better at designing and running empirical experiments than any warmist on the planet. Period.

“unless you can derive a first order calculation of the effect that you would expect to see..”
Just how much larger does your blithering idiocy need be writ? One way to solve for a moving atmosphere would be to apply linear flux equations to multiple discrete moving air masses. Calculus won’t save you, you would need a computer program. Oh wait! I am better at that than you are!

Or alternatively you could run some simple empirical experiments. Oh wait! Warmists don’t “do” empirical experiments!

So, my little pony, on a scale of 1 to F****D, how is the warmist cause looking? All the way to 11?

I own you. ;-)

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Edim

0
0

Konrad, WHUT seldom makes sense, don’t bother.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Myrrh

0
0

Max – it’s worse than that.

The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Energy Budget, KT97 and ilk and taught at university level, is that all the energy at TOA is shortwave, mainly visible light and the two shortwaves of uv and near infrared either side (the near infrared at 1% of that total). They have excluded completely the acual real heat from the Sun which is longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared to differentiate it from non-thermal infrared, the invisible shortwaves infrared which are not hot.

So, scientists arguing about heat from the Sun being a factor in global warming, …, for the most part, do not realise that this is what is being taught by AGWScienceFiction’s fake fisics, so they think “solar” includes the direct powerful wavelengths of heat, but AGWSF has taken them out.

Well, not actually taken them out, they by sleight of hand still include them in their “solar” gross amount, but they pretend these are all shortwaves.

They do this to pretend that any real world measurements of thermal infrared, dowwelling longwave infrared, are from the “atmosphere”, not from the Sun, so they can present these as being the “backradiation from greenhouse gases”.

These are magic tricks, sleights of hand of science fraud to promote the AGW concept.

Visible light from the Sun cannot physically heat matter, it is too small to move whole molecules into vibration which is what it takes to heat matter, and AGW has taken out the direct thermal energy of the Sun in transfer by radiation. Ergo. They have no direct heat from the Sun, so what can they possibly know about global warming?

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Konrad

0
0

@ Edim
Of course I don’t take lightweights like My Little Pony (warmist formally known as WHUT) seriously. Personal entertainment purposes only. ;-)

The warmist last line of defence is Google. In response to Climategate they committed “googlegate”. Warmists are hoping that their allies at Google will erase data supporting way back searches. Google “do no evil” will certainly try. Where they seem to be slow on the uptake is that their systems have already been compromised. Checksums are not the problem, byte count is. Pony boi? Forget it. Sceptics already own Google. I am just having a laugh ;-)

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by lolwot

0
0

So Konrad is not only a psuedoscientist and crank but also a conspiracy but too. For anyone who doesn’t realize, he’s subscribing the theory that someone at google is part of the illuminati.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by captdallas 0.8 or less

0
0

Maks, “Hansen uses an albedo of .306 -which gives a surface T of -18.8c
.3 gives a ST of -18.3c Observations (Ramanathan) are .286 or -17c We now have a range of 1.8c greater then the so called instrumental AGW forcing.This is a first order problem solve it.”

Right, so there is a +/- 2 C error range due to what “average” albedo might be. Then you can compare the albedo distribution, surface to atmosphere and you get another about +/- 2 C error. As a result the “average” surface temperature is ~14 to 16 C and the “average” SST is estimated at 16 to 19 C.

Since clouds have a diurnal “response” to solar forcing and clouds absorb both solar and OLR, about 50% of the energy absorbed in the atmosphere/clouds impacts the SST plus the “average” deep ocean sw absorption is higher and more retained due to critical reflection angles. WOW! The oceans are dang near exactly like them black body cavities used by the old guys in the first radiant models. Seems like they used different math for the black body cavity and radiant shells if the information available in my Faux News world is reliable in the least.

Maybe that is why the oceans “average” energy is 334.5 Wm-2 and the “average” DWLR is ~334.5 Wm-2. The old black body and radiant shell game.

So what exactly is the “surface” again?

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Konrad

0
0

@lolwot
Go on you squealing little bitch. Challenge my science.

I have clearly claimed that an atmosphere without radiative gases would be far hotter than our current atmosphere.

Pit your empirical experiments against mine. Oh Wait! You don’t have any, do you?

I own you too, loser. ;-)


Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by WebHubTelescope (@whut)

0
0

He has all these cute little experiments without first order math to support it. It is the equivalent of being mislead by a Ricky Jay card trick based on just what you can see. The math is the description of operation, not the illusion.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

The atmosphere far enough from the surface might be hotter but most of the surface would be very very cold and so would be air near the surface. A strong temperature inversion would allow most of the atmosphere be much warmer. All this is, however, just imagination as the assumptions are highly unrealistic.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Steven Mosher

0
0

Brandon

I didn’t say you could not offer evidence. I said that you merely told tonyb he was wrong without offering evidence.
“networks are not vulnerable because I said so”

Do people overstate the threats? Yes. the same way you understate the vulnerability.

So, when tony said the networks were highly vulnerable was he stating by 5%? 10%? Without asking him what he meant by highly vulnerable how did you conclude that his sense of highly vulnerable was wrong.

basically you read somebody talking about networks. you work in networks so you had to find some way to contest what tony said rather than finding some way to explain or clarify your differences. You went looking for a fight. mighty hostile kiddo.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Steven Mosher

0
0

Brandon

“By the way there’s a huge difference between “vulnerable” and “very vulnerable.”

AS predicted brandon rolls out a special version of no true scotsman.

So tell us brandon what exactly is the difference between TONY’S conception of very vulnerable and your conception of very vulnerable.

Gosh, could it be that what he thinks is very vulnerable is different than what you think is very vulnerable.

Quantify how wrong tony is.

Comment on The inevitable climate catastrophe by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

David,

If the equilibrium is not isothermal, we can add a Seebeck pair in the system and extract electricity from that forever adding energy at one point only. That kind of system is exactly, what a perpetum mobile of second kind is defined to be.

Another way of doing the same would be based on two isolated columns that contain different gases. Every proposal presented for non-isothermal equilibrium predicts that the equilibrium temperature gradient depends on the properties of the gas (molecular mass and specific heat). With two such columns a perpetum mobile of the second kind can be constructed, when the bottoms are kept at the same constant temperature ant the temperature difference at top used to produce mechanical work.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images