“You seem to forget that you know what I think better than I know what I think. There’s no point in my answering your question as you are quite convinced that your understanding of my opinion would be superior anyway.”
That statement is perfect Joshua, The only thing that would make it better would be for you to say it in a moment of self reflection as opposed to directing it at someone else.
Your book must be thousands of pages for you not to have reproduced it here already.
R. Gates, a Skeptical Warmist: I don’t even know how to respond to such an ignorant statement.
Document where the heat flows, relevant to that temperature time series that you cited, have been measured and reported.
I wrote this: For example, it does not show whether E/W currents are changing, whether flux in downward and upward directions is changing, or anything else. You could write out a model, say a compartment model, that produced such a time series as its output, specifically modeling heat flows between compartments and sizes/heat capacities of compartments, but I doubt it would be identifiable.
You would not have to relate the measured heat flows to a compartment model of your own construction, but you might relate them to the model of ENSO presented in Nonlinear Climate Dynamics by Henk Dijkstra.
Stephens, Trenberth and others have reported on heat flows, but those are annual averages, and do not produce as output anything like the temperature series that have been presented at that link. The GCMs model heat flows, but they also do not produce temperature time series that can be matched against or tested against the data that you linked to.
You said that the link provided detailed information about fluxes, so show the detailed information about the fluxes.
The AGW theory is full of assumptions about equilibrium, and derivations based on those assumptions, but the Earth climate system is not in equilibrium and never will be. At least complicated, it might be well modeled by a system in near steady-state over appropriate intervals, in which case the energy into a compartment (NH sea surface, perhaps) equals the energy flow out of the compartment. A claim lately is that the sea surface and troposphere are nearly in equilibrium (hence the near constant temperature, averaged over the year), but not quite, with a net flow from the sea surface to the deep ocean. OK, so where does the flow into the deep ocean (Equator, perhaps) slightly exceed the flow in the reverse direction (Arctic and Southern Oceans)?
I have been posting here for a few years now that most of the relevant heat flown are not known, and none are known in much detail (rates at any regions of the world.) You claimed that a link provided detailed information on fluxes, and there was not any information on flux rates there.
What separates the dogs that don’t hunt, such as your springer spaniels, from the rest of us scientists is that we use math to do the detailed book-keeping for us. We realize that all the information can’t be retained and juggled in our head, so we use a model such as CSALT to disambiguate and constrain the valid solutions.
A good example of this is when MiCro says
”
Mi Cro | March 9, 2014 at 8:25 am |The big issue is using global series for regional effects. The El Nino’s reposition large amounts of warm water, then jet streams move moist heated air over the continents in different places.
“
And this is my mathematical book-keeping exercise that explains this redistribution:
http://contextearth.com/2014/01/25/what-missing-heat/
And of course all this model will get is ridicule because as the springer spaniel says ” You’re letting a computer do your thinking for you. “ — whereas in actuality, this is a case of pure algebra. No computer required.
It is more a matter of putting the pencil to paper, which dogs can’t do because they only have pause.
So you’re saying you and I are 29 percenters.
Not quite all of it. The mean annual temperature of a desert is higher than a moist region if latitude and altitude are similar. The tropical desert, climate type BWh, has the highest mean annual temperature of all climate types.
John DeFayette, your idea of actions required to brake (slow down emissions) is too extreme. Slowing down means reducing fossil fuel burning 10-20% per decade until it reaches near zero. This can be done with 21st century technology and the growing motivation from climate change as it becomes realized. Look how far we came between 1900 and 2000. Fossil fuels will become so 20th-century by the time we reach 2100. This is moving forwards on a different path, and not the same path that has the fog on it. It is a cleaner path with a better urban environment too, as a by-product. You seem to be too alarmist about these types of actions and their effects, and too defensive of the fossil-fuel driven status quo that burns all of them, and seeks more, without leaving any in the ground, which is the wrong path entirely.
“Gleick’s comments are really outstanding”
Gates once again leaves his skepticism at home. Like forgetting to put on your underwear in the morning. Getting to be kind of a habit Gates. Habits can be dangerous….
“Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny”
Gandhi
Had Peter Glieck stuck to water issues, his credibility and reputation would have remained in good stead.
Count him as another casualty of the High Church of Environmental Activism. Self inflicted category.
Kim writes: “er, ‘don’t want to read’ Gleick. Won’t. Well, maybe I should, to see just how he tries to torque science.”
Depends on how strong my stomach is on any given day. There are times guys like Gleick literally make me nauseous. Occasionally I settle for a quick skim, just to appease my conscience. Other times times it’s self preservation all the way. I’m quite sure it’s more than Gleick does re skeptical writing. Come to think of it, wasn’t he the guy who pretended to read “The Delinquent Teenager?” Or was that some other warmist fraud? There are so many, it’s hard to keep track…
This is the best explanation of warmista theory that I’ve ever seen. Even though it doesn’t derive a sensitivity number, the astute reader can ascertain from the narrative the value.
From the article:
Climate Change is the new political-manufactured definition that solves the limitation-imposing name of Global Warming. The name Climate Change has the flexibility of covering cool temperatures as well as warm, instead of only warm with Global Warming. Ultimately, Climate Change allows world governments to blame their climate ills on their people whether the Earth’s average temperature rises or falls.
…
Carbon Dioxide (molecular formula: C666O2) is both a naturally, unnaturally, and supernaturally occurring gas emitted from angry volcanoes, the natural emission of flatulence from the sea floor, and sarcasm. Since roughly the time of the industrial revolution, mankind has been burning dinosaur blood at an alarming rate to power his machines, and make his snacks. This burning has risen the amount of C666O2 in the atmosphere which has blocked out a measurable quantity of the happy light spectrum from the sun, making the Earth angry… in a heated way.
In condensed form, C666O2 can retain heat exponentially. Many have reported that if one were to breath into a flask and close it quickly, the flask would become red hot and eventually melt. C666O2 has also been shown to be extremely deadly; at just 10cc of pure C666O2 administered intravenously into newborn babies, lethality can reach as high as 50%. It is believed that within 30 years, this terroristic gas will cause a climapocalypse.
…
Work Group 1 cover of the official report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In 1995, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released it’s second and most influential propaganda report. Broken down by three sections known as ‘Work Groups’, the book contained simplistic diagrams which were mostly pictures and few words. Between each work group was a coloring section followed by stickers. The useful information in the report came from the simple diagrams which explains, by way of pictograph, how weather phenomenon works and how it is influenced by man. By following the pictures (after completing a few connect-the-dots activities) it can be determined that the smoke produced from man’s camp fires, car exhaust, and evil cigarette smoke, raises, sits in the atmosphere and puts hand-cuffs on the sun-rays, holding them in the atmosphere. When a buildup of sun-rays occur, rabbits and trees will begin to cry, and the Earth will become sad. The saddened Earth will then produce hurricanes and tornadoes, how exactly is unclear however; the Earth is seen as angry at such time with the words “Hot Head” printed above.
Web by your own logic you want an El Nino so the warming can heat up again. You want the drought to continue to prove the weather extremes hypothesis proof of CAGW. For observers like me you both suck!
More from that article. Model runs …
Climate Model of 1990
ZomMic
Hanz Ooooohhhh addressing Zombie Nation at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
In 1990, a secret climate model run by an anonymous group of politicians has shown that the Earth will either get warmer by at least 0.01°F within the next 500 years or warmer by 500°F within the next 0.01 years. The complete findings of the group after eight years of research and 154M dollars was distributed nation wide on orange post-it notes with the words “Human are cause” (sic) written on it. Since the release of the note, inquires from prominent scientists worldwide for the group to expand upon their findings have been met with silence.
Cpt D. You got it
About 350 pounds each!
I did see the spellings of both Darryl and his other brother Darryl,
They were both the same as me, and you can bet that I heard my
other brother D—– a lot.
That one statement tells you all you need to know about the state of consensus “climate science.”
ordvic, while the pause narrative is very muted in the media and just esoteric to most of the public, an El Nino will put an end to this bloggers’ sideshow distraction, and the warming will correctly be the focus again. Not long to wait now.
Was Hatfield a charlatan to pledge he could attract rain and fill the Morena reservoir to overflowing? Hatfield filled it just as he claimed he would so were the people of San Diego correct to blame Hatfield for causing a devastating deluge? And if so was it the city’s fault too? Or, was it an act of God, which is what the city argued in San Diego Superior Court in response to damage claims that were brought against it. “According to later commentators, Hatfield’s successes were mainly due to his meteorological skill and sense of timing, selecting periods where there was a high probability of rain anyway.” (wiki)
Some interesting similarities and contrasts can be drawn when comparing rainmaking to the stopping of warming (Hatfield and Gore, respectively), as follows:
Similarities
• Government involvement and funding are key elements
• Fear is a key element (i.e., fear of drought/fear of warming)
• Vagary of nature is a key element
• Proponents are good marketers of their product (make rain/stop warming)
• Weatherpersons consider both products illusory
Contrasts
• Hatfield used secret chemical formulas to attract rain.
• Gore used opinions of government scientists whose work cannot verified
• The practice of rainmaking is more art than a science
• The practice of stopping global warming is more politics than science
• Making rain is local
• Stopping warming is global
• Rainmakers are positive blaming neither man nor nature for a lack of rain
• Warm stoppers are negative blaming humanity for causing warming
• Rainmakers do not get paid if they do not produce
• Warm stoppers are paid to create alarm about warming
‘Cal – if – orn – ia …
right back where u started from,
closing down that golden gate…’
H/t Al Jolson and also that other Al et al
plying – back – ter – golden – age – policies
they’ll find tres inconvenient.
Drought is usually accompanied by fewer and less dense clouds. So yup, I could see regional temperature increasing as a result of drought.
