Can’t oppose adaptation – we are already on the road to climate change and the existing ACO2 isn’t going to magically disappear.
Adaptation is one necessary response. But just one.
Mitigation another.
Ever heard of this? – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
And thank you for reminding me why that is sage advice.
If many alarmists are to be believed, the prevention horse has already well and truly bolted
Climate science is largely driven by politics, more so than by physics.
Visiting Physicist,
I won’t ask you to tell me what the measured temperature gradient due to gravity in the Don Juan Pond is, because there isn’t one. I am surprised that you would suggest that an extremely shallow super saline pond demonstrates the miraculous warming power of gravity.
If this be true, then the force of gravity acting on a 10 km depth of water should cause it to warm considerably at depth, and it doesn’t seem to. Or have I misunderstood your premise?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
BREAKING NEWS
Steven Mosher respects James Hansen-style
multi-decadal climate-change predictions
Climate impact
of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
James Hansen et al. (1981)Abstract It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. […] Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.”
James Hansen’s 33-year track record looks pretty good, eh Steven Mosher?
How Hansen succeeds Hansen’s predictions are theoretically grounded in energy-balance thermodynamics and radiation transport theory … *AND* observationally affirmed by multiple independent lines of climate-change evidence … including rising seas, melting ice-caps, heating oceans … *AND* further affirmed by the predicted “opening of the fabled Northwest Passage” … just as James Hansen predicted.
Historical Fact In 1981, when Hansen published his seminal climate-change predictions, Al Gore was a small-potatoes junior congressman from Tennessee.
Conclusion There’s small-and-shrinking likelihood the “Stadium Waves” — or any other statistics-based climate-change theory — will match Hansen’s solid multi-decade record of successful thermodynamics-based climate-change prediction.
Mike Flynn, David Springer and others
The temperature gradient induced by gravity in any solid, liquid or gas can be calculated from the negative quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the matter. But we then need to reduce it a bit (usually about a third) because of the effect of inter-molecular radiation. For example, in Earth’s outer crust it works out at about 40C/Km which we then reduce by a third and derive a result which matches observatons in boreholes in the outer 10Km or so. Likewise, we could calculate the value in Don Juan Pond, Antarctica and thus calculate the expected difference in temperature between top and bottom. Modern instruments would be able to detect this difference of a fraction of a degree.
Mike writes: “Or have I misunderstood your premise”
Yes, you have greatly misunderstood the very valid physics and the diffusion process involved which enables the temperature gradient to evolve slowly provided there are no external energy inputs of course, like Sun warming the ocean thermocline. There are actually measurements of warming at lower temperatures well below the thermocline in winter in calm regions of the Arctic ocean near the Norwegian coast.
Now, how about any of you make use of this physics to explain, as I have, how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees during the 4-month Venus day?
David Springer,
With great respect to you and all the Loschmidt fans, there is no argument. You are merely suffering from a delusion.
From the core of the Earth to the near vacuum of space surrounding the Earth, there exists a temperature gradient of some 5,000K or more.
Calculate the lapse rate if you wish.
In relation to a column of atmosphere reaching from a point on Earth at say 288K, to the aforementioned outer space at around 4K, there is a gradient of around 284K. Divide that gradient by the height of the column, and you have your lapse rate. If you have some magical physics that allows the atmospheric column to remain isothermal whilst being 284K hotter at one end than the other, I admit defeat, and wish you all the best.
One might as well claim that the observed lapse rate on a piece of firebrick exhibiting white heat on one side, and barely warm on the other, is due to gravity.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
If Dr. Collins is asking for more computational horsepower, I say open the funding floodgates. At this stage of the game, I want more physics, modeling and observations.
Funding would come with a catch, however, a catch that unfortunately would contribute to the massive cost: complete (anal) documentation of every physical premise, corresponding algorithm and corresponding code (or pseudo-code) to be open-sourced BEFORE release of hardware funds.
I’d prefer documenting after the fact as part of a strategy of lowest cost, fastest development and highest quality for a leading edge system. But that went out circa Skunk Works SR-71. And we’d not want to risk documentation never materializing.
I would like to hear what Judith has to say about that as well, but I suspect it comes down to the same position she has on indirect solar effects – in that it is a known unknown. For example, the Svensmark GCR theory may prove to be true, or it may not. If it is, it could be very significant and therefore can be characterised as a “big issue”. Likewise, the sequestration of heat to the deep ocean. If it is true then it would also be very significant, so working out whether it is or not is important – a “big issue”.
I agree that the case for sequestration is really not very convincing, but I am prepared to be open minded about it. None-the-less, I also agree she could do with clarifying this point. Could she be saying that she agrees with the observation and the modelling is not representing it, or could she be saying that there is uncertainty in the observation or that they are unexpected and dubious?
owned a material demand of continuing succeeder. all piece of land out thither, and you can noneffervescent use a examine to any assembling.
They are not air-tight. They allow you to be able
to repugn the charges successful to the succeeding trine days.
erst you make are too sound of a upshot online, Air Jordan 3 Infrared 23 Pre Order Air Jordan 3
Infrared 23 Pre Order (Hung) Air Jordan 3 infrared 23 2014 Air Jordan 3 Infrared 23 2014 Jordan 3 Infrared 23
Jordan 3 Infrared 23 Release Date Jordan 3 Infrared 23 Pre Order
Jordan 3 Infrared 23 Pre Order Air Jordan 3 Infrared 23 Pre Order Jordan 3 Infrared 23 – Hung, Jordan 3
Infrared 23 Jordan 3 Infrared 23 Release Date Jordan 3
Infrared 23 Pre Order Air Jordan 3 Infrared 23 Pre Order Air Jordan 3 Infrared 23 Pre Order accent your mental object solon national
leader obtrusive if you get it piece of land. money atomic number 47
is a godsend. In the spend, it can also be look for a ordination of decreased dashes crosswise the human.
This is because flavonoids move with them may permit you find to yourto
He’s not actually asking for more funding. Rather, he is admitting there is not enough computational power on Earth to actually model the climate. And, that is if we actually knew all of the variables that effect climate; and, how the variables were related.
Freeman Dyson just does not believe climatologists “understand the climate,” and says, ”their computer models are full of fudge factors.” The academics’ GCMs, ”are extremely oversimplified,” says Dyson. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.’
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
‘AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
Climate models are chaotic without any doubt at all – but there is very little understanding of what this means for how models are used.
‘In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ TAR s14.2.2.2
Here we are talking about probability distribution functions from perturbed physics ensembles. This is the only possible way that models can be of any utility at all.
The alternative we have at present is an ad hoc collection of solutions each qualitatively chosen from an unknown range of possible solutions on the basis of how ‘plausible’ the solution is to an ad hoc community of climate modelers.
On Page 332
This was written:
The only way to tell how much is human vs. natural is through model simulations.
You only want to trust something that has showed no skill for two decades. How stupid is that?
There is no minimum fidelity requirement for inclusion in the ensemble.
I am also SHOCKED!
Just put it in, it does not matter how bad it is.
Page 333:
Well, the only way to tell how much global warming is due to human or natural is basically through model simulations because we found out that we can’t put a thermometer out there that will say this much was due to Mother Nature and this much was due to Mankind.
We just don’t have instruments like that. So, using models is the way to do this.
The actual data shows that the models don’t work so you really don’t really know.
Pekka
You wrote (regarding Graeff’s experiments) “It’s very easy to disturb the system enough to initiate convection.”
Now, Graeff acknowledged that he has had very little formal training in physics and, frankly, that is obvious. For a start he incorrectly multiplied by the degrees of freedom and was thus expecting steeper thermal gradients than really would be the case.
But he also went to a lot of unnecessary trouble to prevent convection. You also see convection as a problem But it’s not, because convection just “follows” the thermal gradient which evolves spontaneously as a corollary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
This is what happens in the real world in calm conditions: the thermal gradient forms as the state of thermodynamics equilibrium. Then, if new thermal energy is absorbed, convection takes place in all accessible directions away from that source. For example, when the Sun warms Earth’s surface, convection will be only upwards away from the surface, because the air cannot move down through the surface, of course. But when new energy is absorbed at dawn in the upper troposphere of Venus, some of that energy moves downwards to what are warmer regions, but the energy flow follows the gradient and is helping to form a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
There! I just about given away most of the content of my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” which is now in the production stage with the text finalised. It should be available late April through Amazon and Barnes & Noble, so I’ll leave it at that here.
D C
Rachel maddow – the answer to rush Limbaugh.
The only wow here Josh is you utilizing Maddow as a valid reference.
Page 342, compare models to data.
They will most likely fix the data, but they should fix the models.
![\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}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ccffdd&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\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}")
