“Energy being used to hold up the weight of an atmosphere via conduction and convection is no longer available for radiation to space since energy cannot be in two places at once.”
Reminds me of this
“How can you be in two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all”
Firesign Theatre
WebHubTelescope:
I thought that you did better on this page, where you worked with the numerically estimated second-derivative from the SOI data, and the data-model fits had R^2 values of under 0.25.http://contextearth.com/2014/02/10/the-southern-oscillation-index-model/
On this page you didn’t seem to me to make much sense:http://contextearth.com/2014/04/05/the-chandler-wobble-and-the-soim/
For example, as you noted, putting 1/phi on the lhs led to singularities. You wrote that the pressure index of the SOI is essentially a differential measure, so the derivative of the Mathieu function should be fit to the pressure [presumably you meant "pressure difference"]; I don’t see how that is justified.
But as you wrote, I might be missing something.
Correction needed: The link to the Briggs critique of the Socialism or Extinction study is actually to CNS news, not CBS news. Those are horses of entirely different colors from the standpoint of media penetration, although the content of the piece stands or falls on its own.
Climatologists are not able to reject the null hypothesis that all climate change can be explained by natural causes. Accordingly, everything you claim to be true is… totally false.
Jim D and Peter Lang
Jim, your projection of 1.7-1.8% for emissions based on continuation of past CO2 growth rates, despite a dramatic slowdown in population growth, as projected by UN, makes no sense at all. Remember we are talking about human-caused CO2 emissions.
Peter, I see you now write that the Nordhaus estimate is based on 686 ppmv CO2 by 2100.
To clarify, Nordhaus (2008) projected CO2 concentration in 2100 at 686 ppmv.
This is not much different from my “back of the envelope” figure of 650 ppmv and is certainly not absurd IMO. I thought you cited a much higher value (over 1000 ppmv) in your earlier comment, but maybe I misunderstood.
My comment (that the forecast was grossly exaggerated) was based on the data you listed in your earlier comment (mixing GtC per decade with GtCO2/year), and possibly by my misunderstanding your statements. Now that you have cleared this up, you can ignore my comment.
You say I have not used compounded (exponential) growth rates.
Manacker does not use rates of change but simply does a linear projection of past rates. so he is ignoring the effects of compounding .
This is not correct. The compounded annual growth grate (CAGR) of per capita CO2 emissions (1970-2010) was 0.25% per year. I used a slightly higher CAGR of 0.3% per year going forward to 2100, tied to the projected annual population. This results in roughly a 30% increase over the period.
Using my simplified per capita CO2 emission approach, one would need to use a CAGR of pc CO2 emissions of 0.6%, or twice the rate I used, to arrive at a CO2 concentration of 686 ppmv by 2100, as Nordhaus has estimated.
So, based on these data, the Nordhaus (2008) CO2 projection (tried to anticipated GDP growth) checks roughly with my “quickie” reality check (tied to population growth plus an increase in pc CO2 emission), except that his estimate ends up with a somewhat higher CAGR of pc emissions to 2100.
Now to Tol.
According to Tol, the projected warming by 2100 (per his Figure 1) is 3.7ºC above the temperature in 1900 (his baseline), or 3ºC above the 2010 temperature. He states his bases: change of temperature benchmarked to 0.04ºC per year and change since “pre-industrial” (1750) = 1.0ºC. Figure 1 shows annual increase growing from 0.02ºC in 2010 to 0.038ºC by 2100 and flattening out asymptotically to a maximum of 0.04ºC (his “benchmark”?).
At the 2xCO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3ºC, as predicted by the IPCC climate models, this would mean CO2 level of 2*390 = 780 ppmv (at “equilibrium”).
This is high, but not unrealistic IMO. And it appears that Tol does not tie temperature increase to CO2, GDP or anything else other than a “benchmark” rate increase of 0.04ºC per year.
So our “disagreement” really isn’t one, Peter, now that the numbers are cleared up.
The difference between my 650 ppmv CO2 and Nordhaus’ 686 ppmv CO2 is minimal.
Tol does not specify a CO2 level for 2100 in his study, but based on the warming he estimates, it is somewhere around 780 ppmv.
My “quickie” reality check would say this is probably on the high side, since it would require the pc CO2 emission to increase at 1.15% CAGR, over four times the rate actually observed from 1970-2010. It also would mean that every man, woman, and child on this planet would be emitting as much CO2 per capita as the inhabitants of the “industrially developed” nations do today, around 12 t/a. A stretch, IMO
But I’ll repeat the point I made: anything in the range of 650 to 790 ppmv would still lie within my “quickie” reality check; levels around 1000 ppmv would not (because they imply that every man, woman and child on this planet will be emitting twice as much CO2 per capita as the inhabitants of the “industrially developed” nations do today, around 26 t/a).
I’m sure you would agree that this is not a reasonable projection, especially in view of the fact that the “industrialized nations” are gradually reducing their per capita emission and the second constraint that there most likely aren’t enough fossil fuels left on our planet to even reach these levels.
I hope this now clarifies our apparent misunderstanding, so we can end this exchange and move on to something else.
Max
My fellow serf, have you noted that the ‘teenage’ rebellious phase allows young adults to try out a lot of social system, before the majority decide that their parents were not so dumb after all.
Biology is beautiful; neurobiology more so.
The role of NO as an antioxidant is becoming more and more acknowledged. What isn’t widely known is that both alcohol dehydrogenase and aldehyde dehydrogenases are also nitroso-reductases. Whenever NO stop carbon radicals doing the oxidative peroxide cascade the resulting nitroso fatty acid gets reduced almost immediately. You never see the nitroso adducts of carbon radicals in cells as the decay rate is so fast.
I would still worry more about nitrosoamines than circulating NO though.
If I ever do start to worry I will suck a stick of dynamite.
Rupert Ellison, Now we can see how you have become like a Linus Pauling caricature, railing against the likelihood of a mechanism based only on your preconceived notions.
The bell curve fostering certainty,
the average man, in medio stat virtus,
all embracing mediocrity.
David Appell,
Judith has appeared to provide you with the reply you so richly deserve.
Have you considered commencing litigation against this Judith person? Obviously in the US, you must feel this is possible, otherwise your comment could be viewed as merely malicious and asinine.
I support your concern that scofflaws should be brought to book, and I am prepared to contribute handsomely to your suit. Simply present me with your intended legal strategy, in person, and after perusal I guarantee I will donate the sum which I consider appropriate.
Initially, you might provide evidence of your legal studies (formal or otherwise) so that I might satisfy myself that you are not just, as we say in the legal profession, flapping your gums whilst engaging in a bizarre frolic of your own.
I remain, sir, your most humble and obedient servant,
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
rhhardin,
Precession’s a bitch, ain’t it! It gets my vote. It also gets my goat every time it reminds me I forgot about it. I’m learning. Slowly.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
AGW is an idea past it’s use by date. The new and most parsimonious climate paradigm is that climate is an emergent property of a deterministically chaotic system. Hence the 1998/2001 climate shift and the pause.
e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00626.1
‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
So what’s to stop cooling over the rest of the century? Absolutely nothing. Talk about a significant empirical obstacle.
What’s the matter with youse lot? What have you got against mediocrity? By definition, 97% of climatologists produce work that is no better than mediocre in climatological terms. Of course, the bottom 3% is really awful.
It’s not rocket science, this statistics caper. Any fool can see that, and the proof of this is demonstrated every day by itinerant jugglers, woodcutters, data losers and tricky splicers, who claim through their papers to prove the non existent by means of statistics.
Mediocrity? It’s the gold standard where climatology is concerned. At least climatologists don’t have to attempt to seek gainful employment in any field where mediocrity is not a requirement.
Climatology may have been created to offer welfare to those people who can’t get a real job. Who knows? It’s all pretty recent isn’t it?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
David in Cal wrote:
When one starts to look at magnitude, consensus utterly disappears.
Let me suggest you go read the 5AR WG1, and get back to us on this.
“As it turns out, the global warming ‘hiatus’ doesn’t exist,”
Eric Holthaus, Quora, November 15, 2013
http://qz.com/147049/as-it-turns-out-the-global-warming-pause-doesnt-exist/
Remember advancing glaciers swallowing whole villages
in the Little Ice Age, LIA , … today in a new ice age, NIA,
creeping bureaucracies swallowing up potentialities for
innovative investigations.
The ‘mechanism’ is chaotic shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation.
It seems very much to involve changes in global cloud cover and the global energy budget.
How is this not obvious?
Progressive denialism – the inability to recognize science and data inconsistent with the preconceived notions – is triple plus unscience.
So what?
