Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Climate model tuning by David Springer

$
0
0

Pratt’s correct. The tiny amount of longwave in sunlight isn’t reflected by CO2. A fraction of it is absorbed and approximately half of that is reemitted in the direction from whence it arrive. That’s not reflection it’s absorption and reemission as Pratt correctly stated and that which I’m clarifying and expanding.

Don’t forget that CO2 has rather narrow LWIR absorption bands and sunlight is continuous blackbody spectrum. Therefore, in the miniscule amount of LWIR emitted by the sun, CO2 only absorbs a small fraction of that because of its narrow absorption bands. Adding insult to injury because it’s absorption and reemission rather than reflection only about half of the LWIR in sunlight captured by CO2 is reemitted outwards while the other half is emitted downward at the earth so the faux reflection is only half of what the absorption bands manage to snag.

Write that down.


Comment on Why progressives should love a carbon tax by Macha

$
0
0

Just as astonishing is how a tax can affect climate?!!! What on earth ( excuse pun) has money or policy got to do with weather. Ridiculous,

Comment on Climate model tuning by Jim D

$
0
0

ozzio, sorry, which part didn’t you understand, absorption, reflection, emission, perhaps transmission and scattering? These are the usual concepts in radiative transfer. Your own blind acceptance of CG’s wrong statement was woeful, as I think you see now. If you don’t think reflection is a change in direction of photons when they hit a surface, please offer your alternative.

Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by kim

$
0
0

I once wondered out loud how many pregnant or post-partum women have died because Salix Rx dolor, tumour et calor. I shoulda kept my rubor mouth shut.
===========

Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by Tom

Comment on Climate model tuning by Herman Alexander Pope

$
0
0

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.

The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.

Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: “The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.”

The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350. However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia’s highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

“Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year,” said Prof John Wahr of the University of Colorado. “People should be just as worried about the melting of the world’s ice as they were before.”

His team’s study, published in the journal Nature, concludes that between 443-629bn tonnes of meltwater overall are added to the world’s oceans each year. This is raising sea level by about 1.5mm a year, the team reports, in addition to the 2mm a year caused by expansion of the warming ocean.

The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the “third pole” – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.

It is time to RE-tune the models.

Comment on Climate model tuning by Herman Alexander Pope

$
0
0

Yep, it snows more when oceans are warm and wet and that is when the ice on earth is replenished.

Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by kim

$
0
0

Gad, Beth, I wuz wundering why we were counting calories instead of foraging, and then I see the metric is in coteries. A stat infusion in the roasting fleshy offering gives Yamal a la McIntyre, fit food for the gods and Gaia. Serve with theobromine, Ha, Chokola!
======================


Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by kim

$
0
0

It can only buffer the onset of the next glaciation, the question is to what extent, and probably only settled by the extent of the next glaciation. HeeHaw.
======

Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by Tom

Comment on Climate model tuning by David Springer

Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by DocMartyn

$
0
0

Temp, you say:-

“You can only say this if , and when, the Earth is in thermal equilibrium”

The Earths temperature is never in equilibrium; the ‘average’ temperature is a steady state. Steady states are quite different from equilibria and pretending one is the other is quite wrong; you may as well treat a helicopter as a helium balloon as they both float in the air.

Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by Tom

$
0
0

Thanks to the scientific fourth estate, the world has evolved to rumor.

Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by Tom

Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by DocMartyn

$
0
0

The freezing of the Thames and village’s under glaciers are anecdotal; tree-ring widths and bore-hole water temperatures are data.
The new updated US temperature will indicate that the dust bowl conditions of the 30′s were due to snow.


Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by Tom

$
0
0

Create or mutate; you be the judge. Science today.

Comment on Manufacturing consensus: clinical guidelines by Tom

Comment on Unforced variability and the global warming slow down by Arno Arrak

$
0
0

GaryM | July 13, 2013 at 12:11 pm | Reply

Apparently no climatist has bothered to read my book [1] where all about ENSO. is explained. ENSO is a periodic climate phenomenon generated by the Central Pacific current system that has a world-wide influence. It is a harmonic oscillation of ocean water from side to side involving the trade winds, equatorial currents, and the equatorial counter-current. If you blow across the end of a glass tube you get the fundamental tone determined by the dimensions of the tube. Trade winds are the equivalent of blowing across the tube and the ocean answers with its own fundamental tone – about one El Nino wave every five years or so. Start with trade winds. They push warm water west along the two equatorial currents until its way is blocked by the Philippines and New Guinea. This causes it to pile up and form the Indo-Pacific warm Pool, the warmest water on earth. When enough has piled up gravity flow east begins along the equatorial counter-current. It takes the form of an El Nino wave that crosses the ocean and runs ashore in South America. There it spreads out along the coast and warms the air above it, Warm air rises, interferes with trade winds, joins the westerlies,and we notice that an El Nino has started. But any wave that runs ashore must also retreat. As the El Nino wave retreats, water level behind it drops half a meter, cold water from below fills the vacancy, and a La Nina has started. As much as the El Nino raised the global temperature, the La Nina will now lower it. In the absence of other forcings this balance can be very precise. A common El Nino index is Nino3.4 that uses oceanic SST changes to predict an upcoming El Nino. It just happens to sit in the middle of the equatorial counter-current, the conduit of El Nino waves crossing the ocean. The observed time lag between the index and atmospheric warming that follows corresponds to the transit time of the El Nino wave from the middle of the ocean to South American coast. It is possible for oceanic conditions (cyclones etc) to block the progress of an El Nino wave crossing the ocean. If this happens its warm water spreads out on the spot and warms the atmosphere above it. This is called an El Nino Modoki or CP (Central Pacific) El Nino. One statistic I saw (which I cannot vouch for) is that this happens 30 percent of the time and accounts for irregularities in the observed El Nino phenomena. Since it is a periodic phenomenon it has nothing to do with global warming as some misguided authors have argued. It has existed as long as the Pacific equatorial current system has existed, which is to say since the Panamanian Seaway closed. That would be a little under two million years ago. Some people like Hansen have claimed that Pliocene had an “El Nino-like” climate. This is nonsense for two reasons. First, El Nino did not exist in the Pliocene and second, it is impossible for an oscillation to supply steady heat for an epoch.
[1] Arno Arrak “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change” (CreateSpace 2010)

Comment on Unforced variability and the global warming slow down by David Springer

$
0
0

It seems clear to me from context that the author believes climate sensitivity is a constant and that it determines the straight line path of the man. That’s what Willis was talking about so I’m forced to agree with Willis.

Sensitivity would probably be a constant if the earth were an evenly illuminated plane but in reality it’s a very unevenly lit spinning sphere. Snow and ice comes and goes at different latitudes drastically changing albedo in where it matters much more in lower than higher latitudes. Thus sensitivity isn’t constant but changes with absolute temperature of the globe as it draws nearer to or further from the freezing temperature of water such the action in snow cover variation is occurring at different latitudes depending on absolute temperature.

Comment on Unforced variability and the global warming slow down by Jim D

$
0
0

Several people have now invoked clouds as an external forcing. I don’t know a mechanism by which this is possible. Clouds, like the ocean, are part of the internal variability, and even more so because they don’t have much of a lifetime or memory themselves, so they are on a very tight leash. The biggest cloud effect is that of aerosols, which can be considered forcing, but that was stated as part of the aerosol forcing, so no disagreement there with the main post either.
I just see trying to add things like clouds to the external forcing as an attempt to muddy the science, which clearly defines it separately from internal variability that includes the oceans, sea-ice and clouds.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images