Robert Ellison, so lambda is sensitivity. I have shown you that dT/dF varies with temperature using the same S-B formula as you, and now you don’t understand? How can that be?
Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by manacker
Michael
There are a lot of tide gauge data out there, which go back to the early 19thC and some reconstructions that go back even further. I believe tony b has written a paper on historical tide data that go back several centuries.
From all these data we know that sea level has generally been increasing since we started emerging from the Little Ice Age.
This has not happened smoothly. Within the 20thC alone there have been decadal rates of increase of over +5 mm/year and other decades at -I mm/year, with an average rate over the first half of +2.0 mm/year and the second half of +1.4 mm/year, for an annual average of around +1.7 mm/year.
Using a total different method of measurement today, covering a totally different scope, it has been around +3 mm/year most recently.
Comparing this with the tide gauge record is fraught with some danger, but the current rate of SL rise appears to be well within the range seen over the past century.
The Dutch have been adapting to increasing SL for centuries, and this works just fine. The same is true for Germany.
It should work for New Orleans as well, provided politicians there are as far-sighted as the Dutch.
Adaptation is the only proven solution to challenges resulting from rising SL.
Pretty simple, actually.
Max
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Here is more on the upcoming WG3.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/06/global-warming-un_n_5099769.html
↧
Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by barrymca
After analyzing the carbon cycle in AR5 my reaction was similar to my thoughts on the same graphic in AR4. The math is very simple, however if I have erred or made an incorrect assumption I would be grateful if someone would point it out.
In order to do a fact check on IPCC AR5 re the human CO2 in the atmosphere we go to AR5 ch6 Fig 6.1 Page 120. IPCC which claims 240 Billion tonnes (GT) of human carbon out of 829 total. Adding all the net exchanges of carbon between the land, the water and the atmosphere including human emissions we have 207.1 GT entering the atmosphere and 203.5 leaving it. Net increase 3.6 GT or 0.43% per year.
Now at this rate of exchange the entire quantity of carbon in the atmosphere is exchanged in 4.1 years. Because some CO2 may be absorbed in days and some in years the 4.1 years represents the length of time it takes for 100% of the quantity of carbon on a given day in the atmosphere to be recycled irrespective of when it was generated.
The calculation is as follows. There are 1497 days in 4.1 years, thus 829 tonnes divided by 1497 days gives us 0.556 GT on the first day, this number can be double checked by dividing 203.5 by 365 . On the second day there is 829 – 0.556 GT left of the original carbon i.e. 828.444. Divide that number by 1497 and you get the old carbon loss on the second day from the original 829. This calculation is repeated every day for 30 years (on an excel program of course). Now as a check sum calculate the amount of carbon added to the atmosphere after day 1. If 207.1 GT of carbon is added in a year divide 207.1 by 365 days and you get the daily addition. That number works out to be 0.5674. Therefore after one day 0.556 GT is absorbed and 0.5674 added. After the second day the amount of new carbon is 0.5674 – 0.5674/1497 + 0.5674 since some of the new carbon will have been absorbed. When both these programs are run on excel it can be seen that the total quantity of carbon will increase slightly.
So consider the 240 GT of human Carbon which is supposed to exist in the atmosphere today, as per AR5, after 1 year we loose 21.5% of all the original carbon or 51.5 GT of the original human carbon.
That means that 51.5 GT of human carbon was removed in the first year. But Fossil fuels and cement only produce 7.8 GT a year. Thus we have a massive disconnect in the math.
The numbers work out something like this, the loss %s are cumulative and represent the loss of old carbon which existed on day 1 There is also a loss of new carbon each day. The quantity of old carbon remaining in the atmosphere is cut in half every 2.85 years.
Year 1 loss 21.5%
Year 2 loss 38.4%
Year 3 loss 51.7%
Year 4 loss 62.1%
Year 5 loss 70.2%
Year 10 loss 91.1%
Year 15 loss 97.3%
Year 20 loss 99.2%
It should also be stated that this is an approximation since some of the human Carbon absorbed by the plants and water will be recycled but since there is such a vast amount of natural carbon in the plants and water the dilution effect renders the recycled human carbon insignificant.
Now with a 7.8 GT a year emission rate and 4.1year recycle time the amount of human carbon in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels and cement is 32 GT this can be easily demonstrated by the 2 excel programs one for the loss of old carbon and one for the gain in new carbon, at 2.12 ppm/GT that gives us a human impact of 15 ppm , this assumes a constant emission rate .
Thus the IPCC are dramatically wrong and cannot justify their number which defeats their entire hypothesis.
It should also be noted that the 32 GT of carbon is relatively constant since it is only affected by the increase in human emissions. For this exercise human emissions were held constant thus a small increase in the 15 ppm will occur with increasing emission levels. An analysis of the increase in human emissions cannot possibly explain the 3.6 GT increase per year in the carbon content of the atmosphere since the total human output is only 7.8 GT from fossil fuels and cement. Although it can be proven that CO2 can no longer affect global temperatures 15ppm is definitely not going to have any measurable effect.
It should be emphasized that all the data used came directly from IPCC AR5 and was not edited in any way.
Actually the IPCC have perfected the bait and switch game. If you search Dr. Vincent Gray IPCC peer reviewer you will find out how they do it.
The research papers quoted, and there are thousands, are all serious and honest papers but they merely chronicle the past and virtually exclusively the negative events caused by warming. It is the IPCC editors who insert the reason for the warming, which is always human emissions although they never offer any proof of how it can be human emissions. The original authors rarely give and certainly never prove the cause of the warming that is done strictly by the editors and the authors never get to read the final version.
So the net result is that human influence is always blamed but never proven.
Now when it comes to peer reviewing only the editors evaluate the reviews and all that do not meet their political aims are trashed.
The system in incredibly corrupt but since they are part of the UN and are following the UN’s agenda of share the wealth they have a vast amount of money to spend on their propaganda and they are giving the news media the alarmist fodder which makes them rich.
The real problem comes when they start making predictions which is virtually all you hear about. These predictions are based on research papers which they have edited, so the well is poisoned.
In addition one can not prove a prediction will not occur. Except their predictions of 20+ years ago have all failed which is why they are in trouble so they have to ratchet up the rhetoric to distract people from their failed past.
↧
Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Robert I Ellison
No – you and others have assumed that:
dF/dT = dj*/dT = 4 σ T^3
The change in emittance does not equal the change in forcing. They are distinct concepts with different units.
Do you not understand this? Is it one of your many blind spots?
↧
↧
Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by manacker
Webby
You are waffling.
The question was:
If we are about to run out of fossil fuels, why should we worry about CO2 emissions?
Max
↧
Comment on Open thread by D C
So what’s your point, gbaikie? Don’t you think I knew about what you wrote? My book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” is indeed talking about gravitational potential energy converting to kinetic energy. As explained therein, it really doesn’t matter which gases absorb the incident solar radiation in the troposphere. The energy is absorbed – over 95% of incident solar radiation is reflected or absorbed. So what’s your point?
My point is that you need to explain just precisely how, in accord with the laws of physics, some of that energy gets into the far hotter surface and actually raises its temperature with a net energy input. The mere 20W/m^2 from direct solar radiation is immediately lost by radiation and conduction back into the atmosphere. As I said, try to understand what Planck was on about, because you don’t. You think radiative flux can somehow be accumulated over 4 months and build up the already hot temperature. It can’t. The energy does not get there by radiation, as peer-reviewed papers explain. So just precisely how does it get there? You won’t know until you read and understand my book. It’s only in one other book that I have been able to find out about after writing mine.
↧
Comment on Open thread by D C
What was measured by the Russian probes was about 2 to 5W/m^2 at a latitudes well away from the equator. They then used this to calculate a semi-global mean for Venus of between 10 and 20W/m^2 for the sunlit hemisphere.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
“Take this climate matter everybody is thinking about. They all talk, they pass laws, they do things, as if they knew what was happening. I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses.” ~James Lovelock
↧
↧
Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Robert I Ellison
IPCC (2007) s3.4.4.1 – based on Wong et al (2006) as well as the ISCCP-FD data.
‘ Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’
It is utter nonsense to suggest that the changes are other than low frequency climate variability – or that they are not climatologically very significant.
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change. http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
Laughable nonsense to think that such large changes work both ways as a CO2 feedback.
↧
Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Jim D
R. Ellison, I thought you knew clouds don’t act spontaneously being short-lived. They are always responding to something else, whether it is climate change or natural variability that typically comes from ocean circulations.
↧
Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by Robert I Ellison
Changes in cloud radiative effects are associated with changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation.
What’s your point Jimbo?
↧
Comment on End of climate exceptionalism by John S.
Jim D | April 7, 2014 at 6:30 pm says: “John S., you are not believing the message in the data because it doesn’t fit your worldview, so you, as is typical, look for conspiracies that altered it.”
Patently unequipped to distinguish between bona fide data and manufactured indices, you resort predictably to ad hominem projections and attributions based upon fitted “trends.” Apparently it hasn’t occurred to you that postal rates have risen no less monotonically than CO2. I’m only interested in scientific evidence, not classic AGW twaddle.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by D C
<b>Of course it's all a lie, because natural cycles control climate - not mankind.</b>
Standard physics tells us why carbon dioxide has no warming effect and water vapour has a significant cooling effect, because it reduces the thermal gradient and thus lowers the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere.
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube" rel="nofollow">Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube</a> confirms what physics tells us, namely that the force of gravity produces a state wherein the maximum <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy" rel="nofollow">entropy</a> (at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium" rel="nofollow">thermodynamic equilibrium</a>) has both a density gradient and a temperature gradient, because of the effect of gravity acting on molecules when they are in free path motion between collisions.
Hence, since the whole greenhouse conjecture starts out from an assumption that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics" rel="nofollow">Second Law of Thermodynamics</a> can be ignored and so (they think) isothermal conditions would apply if you removed all the "pollutants" like water gas, droplets and vapour, carbon dioxide and its colleagues from the atmosphere.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bart R
Wagathon | April 7, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
In the past 800,000 years in the glacial and other paleo records, about every 100,000 years one sees evidence of a prolonged warming trend of 30-year+ averages perhaps 100 times the average of the 30-year+ rates of the tens of thousands of years before or since. The last such uptick begat the Holocene, somewhat over 10,000 years ago.
Until now. Now we have evidence of another such uptick. We understand the physics generating the uptick. We understand the inputs. The claim you call absurd is only absurd to someone in denial or in ignorance of the data we hold known and the simplest, most parsimonious, most universal explanation for it.
↧
Comment on Week in review by John S.
Paul:
It would helpful if you defined your “solar cycle deceleration” and “sunspot integral” and provided a description of the underlying data. Also, please explain how you construct “the stadium wave,” whose 1/16ths of phase you exploit in animation.
↧
Comment on Week in review by David in Cal
Bart R — There’s one difference. The government gives money to Kevin Trenberth, but the fossil fuel industry doesn’t give money to William Gray.
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC AR5 WG2 Report – draft SPM by Bart R
Mike Flynn | March 31, 2014 at 1:51 am |
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:191/mean:193
As I said. The only way to contend “..that the globe is not increasing in temperature..” is to read the graph upside down.
As for your fascination with irrelevant comparisons involving the USA, I can only conclude it’s from lack of familiarity with America. Which would be understandable coming from someone who’s on the far side of the planet from everything he talks about.
↧
Comment on Open thread by D C
Robert I Ellison misquoted me above and I think my reply is worth repeating here …
(1) “The concept of an isolated system can serve as a useful model approximating many real-world situations. It is an acceptable idealization used in constructing mathematical models of certain natural phenomena …” We can treat an imaginary column of air in the troposphere of a planet as an “isolated system” in the sense commonly used in Kinetic Theory and thermodynamics..
(2) “So we repair to other expressions of the 2nd law – the equivalent Kelvin or Clausius expressions:” Do you just? Take yourself back to the 19th century, do you, ignoring all the physics research since? If you wish to argue using the Clausius statement in a gravitational field then I reject your argument, outright, because you cannot then have any explanation as to how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus in order to raise its temperature 5 degrees.
(3) . “Doug applies that to individual photons – i.e. a photon can not pass from a warmer body to a cooler.” Of course it can. Don’t misquote me, thanks! Read my peer-reviewed peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” published on several websites in March 2012, and easily found on P S I. That explains what physicists in the 21st century now realise what happens when photons pass from cold to hot objects.. It also explains why infra-red frequencies in sunlight penetrate into ocean thermoclines, whereas IR frequencies from a colder atmosphere don’t. And it explains why microwave ovens don’t heat those plastic bowls, but the Sun’s rays do, and why back radiation does not melt frost in the shade of a tree, but frost in sunlight does get melted.
(4) “No one has misunderstood the 2nd law but Doug.” Well you’ve just proved you have, because you think what you started out explaining correctly can then somehow be whittled down to the old, outdated and restricted Clausius statement which relates to non-gravitational systems, or only in horizontal planes in gravitational systems. If you don’t understand why, then it is you, my friend, who doesn’t understand thermodynamic equilibrium. And if you disagree, then you have no explanation for the gravitationally induced thermal gradient in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube.
And if you still think you do understand the Second Law, then explain how on Earth you could have two different states of maximum entropy – one for thermodynamic equilibrium and one for hydrostatic equilibrium..
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
WebHubTelescope:I do have correlation coefficients in the graphs.
Not figure 1.
Figure 2 has something called R=cc “correlation coefficient”? with value 0.937 is that it? You were right: I had to enlarge it.
Figure 3 also has R=cc with a figure of 0.937
Those two figures do not appear compatible with a correlation coefficient of 0.937 for either of them, much less both.
Figure 5 top and bottom also have R=cc with identical values of 0.95236.
Fig 5 has the caption: Adding the lunar tidal periods of 6, 8.85, 18.6, and 16.9 years tentatively improves the fit.
It does not look like much improvement.
More from the text: Then if we plot the ratio of the SOI index measurement and its second derivative, we can conceivably extract the varying periodic factor from the graphed profile:
−d2Φdη2Φ=a−2qcos(2η)
If we make the assumption that dΦ/dt is the SOI index, that means we can use the first derivative of the SOI and its integral to find any periodic values. The tricky part is that the integral wanders away from zero, so I filtered out the low frequency modulation, leaving behind only the subdecadal fluctuation. Although a bit messy with singularities, since the denominator passes through zero as the index wanders through inflection points, the fundamental frequency is clearly discernible, see Figure 1:
I do not see the fundamental frequency at all, sorry.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
