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

Comment on What is internal variability? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

Springer, said, “Let’s look at how heat might diffuse from air to water. The air has to be warmer than the water otherwise any difficusion of heat goes from the water to the air not from air to water. The skin layer of the ocean is cooler than the water below it. In order for heat to diffuse from the air, which is warmer than the skin layer and thence from the skin layer to the ocean bulk below it the skin layer must be warmer than the ocean below it otherwise any heat diffusion goes from ocean bulk to skin layer.”

Right, what is the average temperature difference between the SST and air at the skin layer again? Isn’t it about 0.8C?


Comment on What is internal variability? by David Springer

0
0

As usual Pukite fails to grasp the point i.e. human consumption of fossil fuel is noise on a geologic timescale.

Let me explain slowly with small words.

Humans have been consuming fossil fuels for a century or two. There’s enough left for perhaps a century or two more. That would make the fossil fuel era 400 years in length. That’s an eyeblink on geologic timescales. Less than an eyeblink. In a million years it will be like it never happened.

Comment on What is internal variability? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

Webster, The current thinking is that 1.2C is due to CO2 alone, another 1C is due to compounding (positive feedback) water vapor rise, and about 0.8C is due to other GHGs such as methane, n20 and also due to fast albedo feedbacks.”

Current thinking is changing. 1.6 C total is more current and once the longer term ocean transport lags are figured out it will be closer to 0.8C, because 334Wm-2 is the best estimate of “surface” DWLR which is opposed by the best estimate of “surface” average black body energy, the “average” energy of the oceans. You are living in the past. Try to catch up.

Comment on What is internal variability? by Doug Allen

0
0

“..since we are looking at a period of about 3 decades as being the main ‘signal’ from CO2 forcing, we don’t really know how to do the attribution problem on this time scale.” As usual, JC identifies the problem. People (and governments), however, want answers. It’s answers that sell papers, provide grants, give politicians (and pundits) their talking points. Hence the connection to religion, too. Religion gives answers to unanswerable questions. IPCC may be a one trick poney, but it gives the answers people demand. And that answer sells papers, provides grants, and gives politicians and pundits their talking points. It may even be correct, but we won’t know for a long, long time. Whatever the definition and nature of climate variability, periods of global warming (and cooling) occurred regularly before CO2 forcing played a role. Those periods of warming, statistically similar to the recent 1978-1998, and the generally similar 19th and 18th century warming compared to the 20th, make me doubt the confidence levels of the IPCC and others who attribute recent warming to AGW forcing because it also implies the same high confidence level that those unknown or poorly understood forcings responsible for earlier warming and cooling are no longer in play. I doubt that very much.

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by Tom

0
0

Only taxes willard.

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

And Lindzen before him, too.

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by Dagfinn

0
0

Or perhaps “collapse” is just the drama queen version of “melting faster than usual”?

Comment on Pause politics by Max_OK

0
0

Gina, if you see a post 1998 pause in my previous graph of UAH average global temperatures, our eyesight is different. I don’t even see a pause in 1998-2013 using the UAH series. Indeed, the slope for 1998-2013 is about the same as the slope for pre-1998 . For a level OLS line, I have to start with 2005 (see linked chart). Of course UAH is only one of several global temperature metrics.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:2005/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/to:1998/trend/plot/none


Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by Michael

0
0

Willard, really?

But no, not even.

Rud got quite exercised over Fig 3.
“SI2 enables matching each graphed ‘late highstand’ paleocoral sample to its site, in order to understand Figure 3. That is a bit tedious, and something the peer reviewers undoubtedly did not do…
Figure 3 isn’t the surveyed Western Australia coastline of its caption or of Figure 1. It’s only Quobba Ridge. This is easily verified without checking each datum by the summary SI2 tab 4 of all 28 site stratigraphies”.

It was even more easily verified by……reading the description under the graph;
“..a predicted relative sea-level curve at Red Bluff,…”

The Arts of Truth??

More art than truth here, I’m afraid.

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by Tom

0
0

Nothing new for you Michael.

Comment on What is internal variability? by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

” phatboy | August 31, 2013 at 4:25 am |

Whebby, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
You might know a little about diffusion, but you sure don’t know where it applies and where it doesn’t.”

This is just so ridiculous an assertion. The fundamental equation governing the dynamical flow of heat is called the heat equation. This is an equation that describes spatio-temporal continuity and the only real physical term that is in there is the diffusivity. That looks like a pretty phat hammer, eh Phatboy?

Diffusion is the outcome of a random walk and the thermal excitation of matter can randomly walk just like a particle can randomly walk. The random walk of large amounts of matter, such as a randomly moving eddy current can actually move the heat around as well. That is why oceanographers have this thing they call eddy diffusivity, which has been around for ages. An eddy can move horizontally or vertically in a turbulent fashion, and thus randomly move the heat at the surface downward.


DocMartyn | August 30, 2013 at 2:42 pm |

Webby

“The thermal diffusion coefficient of vertical eddies is on the same scale as copper”

Stop smoking that stuff and get yourself into rehab.

As I was saying, vertical eddy diffusivities can be on the order of 1 cm^2/sec. You can look it up here http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter08/chapter08_05.htm
(BTW this is the same link that SpringyBoy likes to use, speaking of shoving it back in the face of denialism)

What is the thermal diffusivity of copper? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_diffusivity
Copper at 25°C = 1.11 × 10−4 m^2/s
Average Vertical Eddy Diffusivity = 1.3 × 10-4 m^2/s

Same dimensional units, same value.
So, about the same. Stick to medicine, Doc.

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

stevefitzpatrick observes “Rud, You made an obvious factor or ten error in rate of rise. You should acknowledge that error and fix it.

Correct.

• Make a scientific mistake? It happens.
• Don’t catch it? Poor technique.
• Refuse to acknowledge it? Violates scientific norms.
• Decline to fix it? Denialism pure and simple.
• Become angry/defensive? Nutjobbery.

These are ordinary scientific norms, eh Rud Istvan?

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by Tom

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by kim

0
0

The request for proposals required inclusion of human fear, a prerequisite for guilt. Just played, an icy Joker from the sleeve.
===============

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by kim

0
0

Cyclomanic creatures drawn out of the woodwork.

H/t Jack Eddy via Leif, the Sol Guard.
=================


Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

Even if it did not help Sir, it might have helped readers, Michael

Extending the scope of fiscal hells, Tom

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by kim

0
0

There’s so little joy in Mudville, now,
Mighty ‘Larum has whiffed, Wow!
=========================

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by kim

0
0

Earth and water
Tumble over;
Tectony,
Gaia’s lover.
========

Comment on Ice sheet collapse? by John Plodinec

0
0

Question: if our current rate of sea level rise (26 cm to 2100) is ~ at the average (22 cm/century) seen earlier under much warmer conditions, why should we worry about an accelerated rate under cooler conditions?

Comment on Pause politics by Gina

0
0

Yes that’s right MaxOK – like Jim D, you see CAGW where even the massed spin doctors of the IPCC don’t; even they concede the Pause.

You two should set up as IPCC Extra or something.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images