@Jim D
I would not consider the moist adiabatic lapse rate to be “mostly determined by convection”. The moist adiabatic lapse rate is 1/2 the dry adiabatic lapse rate. The reduction is due to the presence of water vapor, the dominant GHG in the atmosphere.
@bob droege
I’d like to understand the science behind climate change a little better. I’m not interested in joining a religious movement.
Is this why Obama put a tax on medical devices to pay for Obamacare?
I had a lot of trouble with it. So I modeled it and got a 2:1 ratio of switching to not switching.
I believed the model data.
willb, convection and the moist adiabatic lapse rate both depend on latent heating. We are talking about tropical thunderstorms here.
Craters on the earth get eroded, hidden, filled in, etc. Yes, many can be discerned, But a meteor that leaves even a small crater can ruin your day. Much better to count the craters on the moon, then factor in relative areas of moon vs earth, age of moon. etc. The odds will still be low of course, but you’ll have a better number. And certainly a higher number.
As to your other point,for CO2, and pretty much everything else due to the industrial activity of man (leaving out agriculture for the moment) that has been added to the environment, we have barely 150 years of history, No natural releases of CFCs has ever been proposed, but CO2 has been a part of the atmosphere since about Day 4, so why assume an ill effect for a trace gas that has many natural sinks, which should moderate any change?
Cleansing the air via the CAA reduces warming by what mechanism? Your mechanism needs to consider the ever increasing air pollution created in China and India that are not subject to the CAA, and yet apparently have not caused significant warming over the time of that pollution has increased.
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist | January 19, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
Max,
You are so right to point out the uncertainty of the climate models. They are always wrong on specific details. But since that is not their primary purpose, the experts who use them don’t care too much. But it’s nice to know that every day they get better and better at the dynamics of climate– which IS their real purpose. Unfortunately, some will expect that to make them better at predicting specifics– but as Lorenz taught us only to well — chaotic systems won’t be nailed down on specifics and much uncertainty is inherent in such systems.
_______________
Every day they get better and better at the dynamics… so why aren’t they better and better at forecasting, well, anything?
GCMs can distinguish 30-degree ranges from equator to pole or summer to winter, so why do people have so much trouble believing they can distinguish what happens with a climate change which is one tenth of that?
Fyi–
“Volcanoes and climate change
“While the volcanoes in Canada and Alaska have erupted for more than 10 million years, emerging data suggests that the last 3 million years of glaciers growing and retreating in Alaska and British Columbia also prompted many small volcanoes to erupt, because the changing ice mass flexed the Earth. This activated the fractures and made room for more magma to rise.”
See: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/12-new-volcanoes-found-southeast-alaska-6C10176752
I referred to a group of arguments. Ruddiman advances one of them. Do we really need to say it is “much different” to refer to a group than a member of that group? You mentioned an example of what I was referring to. Why keep portraying it as contrary to my remark?
In other words, why frame things as argumentative when they’re not?
We can wait for charles to contribute something meaningful or turn Dave loose.
Or we can vote.
Looks to me like we have one vote each way.
Have you ever heard of the, ‘hockey stick’?
And Mann’s papers were retracted and Wegman’s wasn’t.
Do I have that right?
@ Bart R | January 20, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
Isn’t it implicit in the argument that a share of the the pile is moving downward right now?
****
Yes, Bart, implicit or not, ocean currents have to make a complete circuit and one way for that to happen is for water to move downward in the Western Pacific. I suppose it could hug the surface and move sideways in the general direction of the poles. Three dimensions and all that, space-wise.
My point, at one point, was that the first derivative of the trade wind westward speed might influence how much of the hotter water is left mostly on the surface, thus could be an influence on the magnitude of the El Nino. Speculation.
Temperature trends for the recent 15 years:
GISTEMP: +0.093 K/decade
NOAA: +0.066 K/decade
HADCRUT4: +0.074 K/decade
Land only:
BEST: +0.174 K/decade
NOAA: +0.138 K/decade
Earth surface is still warming, iisn’t it? Where is the alleged “hiatus”?
A global cooling skeptic
Jan, your well-written comment assumes that skeptics have the burden of proof, but I think it’s the reverse. Those who claim to be able to predict the climate decades and centuries out have the burden of proof IMHO. And, it wouldn’t be satisfied even if their models had worked over the last 16 years. But, with their models failing, their theories are pretty well disproved. At most, it’s possible that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but with lower sensitivity than the IPCC asserts.
@ Steve Fitzpatrick | January 20, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
…
Pekka Pirila,
…
It seems to me that if you don’t know why the model fails to simulate natural variability (and clearly you don;t, or you would fix the problem!), then it is impossible to say that the models can in any meaningful way ‘aid’ in making estimates of climate sensitivity.
…
*****
Not only that, it appears to be consensus that the models don’t handle clouds very well, clouds being among the chief suspects to mitigate the warming effect of CO2.
The phrase used for this phenomenon when Bill Clinton, under Dick Morris’s tutelage, moved to the “center” and abandoned the liberal Democrats in Congress was “The ship is deserting the sinking rats.”
JCH, thanks. If that post is accurate, it gives a decent answer. 99.998% coming from the sun would mean 0.002% comes from the Earth’s internal heat.
I wish they had given a source for it though.
