JCH, you write “They used a decadal forecast model to make decadal forecasts.”
Sorry, you lost me. Why is a decadal forecast model not a climate model?
Comment on Week in review by Jim Cripwell
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change Officers by Adam Gallon
Climate Change Officers are yet another bunch of useless free-loaders sucking from the teat of the public purse.
Sack the lot of them.
↧
Comment on Week in review by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
OK, problems with the angular arithmetic
Try the entire span to eliminate ambiguities:
http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&psfile=on&var=sst&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&month=jan&year=1981&fmonth=may&fyear=2013&lat0=-60&lat1=65&lon0=-180&lon1=180&plotsize=800×600&title=60S-65N%2C+120E-80W&dir=
This is still about 0.1C per decade, about as predicted for 3C ECS.
↧
Comment on How to humble a wing nut by thisisnotgoodtogo
Do you deny what James Hansen said?
“5 year mean flat for a decade”
No rise means warming stopped.
↧
Comment on Week in review by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
Bob T. said:
“Too bad that surface temperature is still the primary metric of global warming. And too bad no one cares about the energy imbalance–except you…maybe.”
———–
I agree that is is too bad that some are so transfixed on the rather limited and rather small energy content and low thermal inertia of the troposphere as displayed in surface temperatures, but it certainly provides some fuel for the endless chatter and yipping of denialists as the surface temperatures exhibit far more natural variability than the larger metric of ocean heat content. Moreover of course, the surface temperatures are the tiny tail that the big dog of the ocean wags, and your fixations with SST’s are a great metric for the transfer of energy from ocean to atmosphere, but poor at really showing the steady long-term energy accumulation in the Earth system.
In regards to no one caring about the energy imbalance in the Earth system, you of course mean than no denialists care or want to discuss it, for if they do, their arguments for “no warming” fall into the pile of dung where they belong. Of course, actual climate scientists care very much about the energy imbalance caused by the ongoing accumulation of multiple GH gases in Earth’s atmosphere. It is that imbalance, and all the different effects it has on oceans, biosphere, atmosphere, and cryosphere that is the focus of so much intense and exceptionally important research worldwide.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
Tony,
Your argument for us not having a good grasp on the upward march of ocean heat content might have been valid 5 or 10 years ago, but no now. It is far more than theoretical.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Myrrh
D Cotton | June 15, 2013 at 6:38 am |
The whole of the pseudo physics of greenhouse effects and assumed heating of the surface by back radiation (or “radiative forcing”) is trying to utilise the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which only relates to bodies in a vacuum losing all their energy by radiation without any conduction or evaporative cooling. A planet’s surface is not remotely like that.
So they changed the atmosphere around the Earth to make it that..
They threw out all the properties and processes of real gases and reduced them all to a single theoretical fiction “ideal gas”.
Ideal gas which has no mass therefore no weight under gravity because there is nothing on which gravity can pull; which has no volume therefore does not expand or condense changing its weight under reduced and increased pressure or heat and cold and so does not become lighter or heavier than air under gravity; with no attraction therefore merely capable of bouncing off another and not capable of undergoing chemical changes, such as water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere forming carbonic acid.
They create their world out of descriptions of an imaginary gas.
They no longer, from what I have seen on pages from universities, teach the difference between ideal and real gases. They have expunged real gases and their differences, thus the real world of form around us, from the consciousness of those being taught.
Tthis is how they think the real world is, that there really is empty space around the Earth because it is so described by being told there is no difference between ideal and real. This is where they get their “container”….
Which of course, ludicrous to the ears of any who know the difference, has now become an invisible container around the Earth against which these ideal gas molecules bounce when they are not bouncing off each other in elastic collisions and so “thoroughly mixing”..
Because they do not know their ideal gases are imaginary and not real, they call them the different names of real gases erroneously, they are not capable of extrapolating into the fun part that there is no “invisible container” around the Earth so their ideal gas hard dots of massless nothing travelling at great speeds under their own molecular momentum through empty space miles apart from each other – are all disappearing to the ends of the universe.
You will not find Van der Waals in their history of gas laws..
But, this one is an unusual find, though it still pushes the general meme that real gases will not be discussed (I had found an education page earlier which said that real gases differences should not be covered at university level, not just high school/secondary level): http://www.oakland.k12.mi.us/Portals/0/Learning/gaslaw.pdf
“1. All matter is composed of tiny, discrete particles (molecules or atoms).
2. Ideal gases consist of small particles (molecules or atoms) that are far apart in comparison to their own size. The molecules of a gas are very small compared to the distances between them.
3. These particles are considered to be dimensionless points which occupy zero volume. The volume of real gas molecules is assumed to be negligible for most purposes.
This above statement is NOT TRUE. Real gas molecules do occupy volume and it does have an impact on the behavior of the gas. This impact WILL BE IGNORED when discussing ideal gases.
4. These particles are in rapid, random, constant straight line motion. This motion can be described by well-defined and established laws of motion.
5. There are no attractive forces between gas molecules or between molecules and the sides of the container with which they collide.
In a real gas, there actually is attraction between the molecules of a gas. Once again, this attraction WILL BE IGNORED when discussing ideal gases.
6. Molecules collide with one another and the sides of the container.
7. Energy can be transferred in collisions among molecules.
8. Energy is conserved in these collisions, although one molecule may gain energy at the expense of the other.
9. Energy is distributed among the molecules in a particular fashion known as the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution.
10. At any particular instant, the molecules in a given sample of gas do not all possess the same amount of energy. The average kinetic energy of all the molecules is proportional to the absolute temperature.”
So that is how they think there is empty space around our Earth with gas ‘molecules’ miles apart from each other travelling at great speeds unimpeded by the volumes of other gases around them, because their gases have no individual volumes.
They have no sound in their world and they do not know they have no sound in their world, just as they do not know this ideal gas scenario created into being the AGW Greenhouse Effect world does not exist.
They are completely, utterly, divorced from the reality of the natural world around us.
Just as our real gases have had all their real properties and so processes excised to create this one size fits all ideal gas world, they have done the same with the electromagnetic spectrum from the Sun – in their fake fisics meme: “all electromagnetic energy is the same and all create heat on being absorbed”.
Systematically indoctrinated into this fake fisics through the general education system they have no reason not believe that “visible light/shortwave from the Sun heats the Earth’s surface and longwave infrared from the Sun plays no part this heating”.
Nor can they see how ludicrous the two reasons given for there being no direct radiant heat from the Sun..
Their minds have been pumped full of scrambled impossible fisics and they will not be able to see this unless they get back to knowing the difference between real and ideal gases, between the real different wavelengths and the one size fits all AGWSciencFiction meme of the Greenhouse Effect.
They do not have any sense of scale and so cannot see the absurdity of a trace gas being a thermal blanket around the Earth or being capable of driving global temperatures, because in their fake fisics world there is no scale. For them a gamma ray and a radio wave are one and the same.
They cannot get winds and weather, they cannot get clouds, in their imaginary GHE world, because their gases are not bouyant in air, so of course they have no convection – and that is why they have no heat transfer by convection.
They have no gravity because their ‘molecules’ have no mass, so they have no weight relative to each which in the real world causes them to separate out, and so of course, their ideal gas molecules can become “thoroughly mixed and can accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years”.
And they have no idea why they do not have these real world properties and processes, they have never been taught them, so they claim they are not important…
↧
Comment on Week in review by lolwot
i would say don’t underestimate paul nurse and the RS. Look what he did to delingpot
↧
Comment on Week in review by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist
If one wants to discuss why the troposphere is not warming over some prescribed period of time, looking at all the energy inputs to that troposphere, etc. and compare it to the models, then that is a valuable activity. But if one wants to conflate a flat-line or even decline in temperatures of the troposphere to be equal to “the world” is not warming, when clearly larger metrics tell us quite the opposite, then arguing based on that conflation would be arguing with fools.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tonyb
R gates
Excuse me? So the heat content of the abyssal waters is what again?
Anyway, as you well know I was pointing out the lack of historical context in promoting such a short term record
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Myrrh – the mass for an ideal gas is accounted for in the temperature. For if the particles comprising the ideal gas had zero mass, the temperature would also be zero. Therefore, implicit in the equation, due to the temperature term, is the mass of the particle of the gas in question.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tonyb
R gates
I was also pointing out that I live on the land and not in the sea and that surface temperatures (plunging here) are much more important to non mermen than the temperature of the ocean at 5000 metres(unknown)
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Myrrh – here is a way to connect the ideal gas law to mass:
” An interesting aspect of the Ideal Gas Law is its flexibility. It contains elements that allow you to solve for other quantities, such as density or molecular mass. To solve for molecular mass:
PV=nRT – start with the equation
PV=mass/mol. mass x RT – change moles to mass(m) in grams divided by molecular mass in grams
mol. mass x PV = mRT – multiply by molecular mass
molecular mass = mRT/PV – divide by pressure and volume.
We can also see density in that last equation, m/V (grams/liter). The same equation, but with density(d) in place of mass per volume (m/V), is:
molecular mass = dRT/P”
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Here is another way (You can’t see the equations because they are embedded images):
“Kinetic Temperature
The expression for gas pressure developed from kinetic theory relates pressure and volume to the average molecular kinetic energy. Comparison with the ideal gas law leads to an expression for temperature sometimes referred to as the kinetic temperature.
This leads to the expression”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bob Droege
Cotton thinks the sun heats the core of Venus, you think the core of Venus heats the atmosphere, you are both cranks,
get a room
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas 0.8 or less
Webster, “I think it is you that is not listening Cappy. Yes, the ocean is retaining 1/2 the excess heat from GHGs, and the SST’s are rising at about 1/2 the rate as the land temperatures are. So we get hotter temperatures where people live and sea level rise from thermal expansion in coastal areas where people live. Is that what has gotten climate observers concerned? ”
Nonsense, the 1/2 is pulled out of thin air. “Global” surface temperature more closely follow tropical ocean temperatures which are more strongly influenced by clouds and solar. Thermosteric sea level rise agrees with OHC change agrees with SST change which agrees with ~0.8 C rise since the most recent minimum in 1915-1917. That ~0.8 C rise is near the estimated “global” temperature depression which is supposedly “below average” “Sensitivity” is dependent on what “average” is and you have no clue what should be the starting point. If you pick the coldest reference you will have high “sensitivity” which you can blame the 1/2 on, but since the initial conditions are vague at best, you are hopelessly lost.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
If you are a global warming alarmist, sea level rise is not something you can hang your halos on. As Roger Pielke observes: “Regarding sea level rise, it has reduced in recent years, according to the peer reviewed paper below. Moreover, the rise that has occurred is not from thermal expansion (i.e. the steric component).” (See–e.g., Cazenave et al. Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo. Global and Planetary Change, 2008)
↧
↧
Comment on Tilting at windmills in Germany by Tonyb
Jimd
I suggested before that we need CERN type project in which interested countries can set up an appropriate research facility with the aim that within ten years efficient, cost effective and appropriate sources of renewable energy would be developed. That might include fusion, wave, a variation on nuclear etc.
To say sceptics are against renewables or are frightended of them is nonsense, we are against inefficient and inappropriate renewables providing expensive power that is unreliable.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Tilting at windmills in Germany by jim2
JimD – I am ABSOLUTELY against subsidies to the fossil fuel industry – I don’t count the depreciation and other tax rules that apply to every business. I am for the government spending money on basic research, but that certainly does not include funding the establishment of companies. So, yes, it is easy for me.
↧
Comment on Tilting at windmills in Germany by Jim D
I think a lot of them are against subsidies, research dollars, incentives, and tax breaks for their home-grown industries in this area even though it is globally an area of competition.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
