Yes, not only convection is missing, but also latent heating, a process that also leads to low pressure and convergence of winds in the more traditional and well known feedback between deep convection and the surface pressure. I don’t see why we need another mechanism for something that is already explained.
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by DocMartyn
Bart R., the last ice-age wiped out the Earthworm in North America. The European earthworm was introduced by the English, in potted plant. The earthworm completely changes the soil and completely changes the way that forests grow.
Earthworms colonize slowly 6m/y. However, they are where ever people colonize a habitat, they introduce earthworms.
So if someone builds a house and garden on a mountain, the mountain has newly introduced soil biotica.
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by DocMartyn
“c02 is trace gas, it cant change the amount of plant growth”
CO2 is trace gas because it does change the amount of plant growth.
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by jim2
Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by Pierre-Normand
Convection and latent heat aren’t missing from the articles. They’re not mentioned by name in this blog entry, but they are clearly assumed, and convection is depicted in the figures.
↧
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by Pete Bonk
Lots of ocean out there to be sure. But what is the effective averaged surface area of a gridded Km square of ocean surface when surface perturbations (waves, spray, foam, etc) are included? How quickly can drier air come into close contact with the ocean “surface” to allow more water to enter the atmosphere? I would guess this has been studied. But I do know the effective surface area of the foliage on an equivalent 1 Km square parcel in a New England or Michigan woodland is enormous- i get to do those calculations every fall when I need to rake leaves off << 1% of that Km square.
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by Phil Kearney (drflip)
The local newspaper (Ft.Collins, CO) today carried a ‘Soapbox’ (super letter to the editor) from a local college prof after his visit to Australia. the Australians convinced him that plant biology is changing because of the extra co2. Among other things leaf size is tending to increase causing more water evaporation and resulting in drought or death of the plant (read “forest”) if it cannot adapt. He also stated that increased sea levels have submerged small islands in the Pacific.
I am a physicist, not a plant biologist, so I will let others debate the leaf size problem. However, have any islands actually submerged due to rising oceans except perhaps. for small sandbars during typhoons?
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by Robert I Ellison
This is a statement from Matthew that has a mendacious subtext. Nor do I care for arbitrary moderation.
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by A fan of *MORE* discourse
climatereason asks “What has your South American link got to do with warming?”
What heat-color was Mesoamerica? What does chronic heat-stress do to kidney function?
Conclusion I Kidney’s face plenty of challenges; increasing heat and humidity can initiate chronic renal failure, with devastating/fatal consequences.
Conclusion II Denialists are comparably adept at foolishly insisting upon wrong questions, as ignorantly embracing wrong answers and/or willfully ignoring inconvenient data.
That’s obvious to everyone, eh Climate Etc readers?
![\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}")
↧
↧
Comment on El Nino watch by philjourdan
@Bart – Show the math behind the confidence (and Best did not state that, just the IPCC).
I did not link to any TIKE trends. I linked to the raw data. You can apply your own trend to it. However since the slope is negative, no amount of confidence is going to make it positive. math 101.
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by Pierre-Normand
Thanks Douglas in Norway. This is also useful. Though for the the analogy to be closer we would need to sink the boat (while sealing its surface to preserve buoyancy) and tether it to the bottom of the pool. The effect of the tension of the rope on the bottom of the pool would however seem like a localized decrease in the pressure on the bottom (compensated ‘globally’ by an increase of the uniform water pressure at the bottom due to a lengthening of the water column). This seems opposite to the effect that we seek to explain in the case of the localized increase of atmospheric pressure consequent on localized surface evaporation. So I am puzzled.
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by Douglas in Norway
Certainly there is a long list of factors that have an effect. Coriolis effects, terrain effects … also atmospheric dust, ocean temperatures. It all depends on the phenomenon of interest.
Here I wanted to focus on specific terrestrial biology links.
Anastassia and the team have done a lot of work on cyclonic systems in which coriolis is key. See, e.g. http://www.bioticregulation.ru/ab.php?id=pla11 (section 3 I think)
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse
Jim Cripwell:
”
It is not up to us skeptics to show that Hitran is wrong; it is up go the warmists to show that Hitran is right. All we get in Myhre et al 1998 is “Three radiative transfer models are used”. It has always struck me that this is a somewhat inadequate explanation of what was calculated.
”
Jim, you do not get to summarily decide who bears the burden of proof in science, or what is an “inadequate explanation” – by commenting on a blog.
Working scientists do, by choosing to use HITRAN, or by publishing a study of spectral properties that adds to the database.
Feel free to reject HITRAN because you suspect it is “wrong”.
Your incredulity is not really a problem for science: there are thousands of published studies of radiative transfer – thousands of researchers have performed thousands of cross-validate experiments on the topic.
Guess what? HITRAN works.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/molecules.html
Since you’ve apparently read Myhre, maybe you’ll take a look at these…
L. S. Rothman et al., J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer
110, 533 (2009).
R. T. Pierrehumbert, Principles of Planetary Climate, Cambridge
U. Press, New York (2010)
↧
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by Douglas in Norway
The pool image was simply to help show how the effect on pressure is spread out over the entire system. The weight of the volume of water displaced (the addition to pressure) will be more if we tether the still buoyant boat at the bottom of the pool as more water is displaced (the pool water level is even higher).
The original point was simply to highlight that local weight and local pressure are different.
I remember in school physics we did lots of questions on what happens to water levels (on pool sides or on the side of boats) when a boat drops weights out, when it drops tethered anchors, when it hauls in fish, etc.
↧
Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by philjourdan
@bart – I can see that reading is not your strong point. I accused nothing. Let me help you
ques·tion mark
punctuation mark: the punctuation mark (?) placed at the end of a sentence or phrase intended as a direct question.
Next, I did not set out to “prove” anything. Nor did I even attempt to. I merely displayed data that “disproves” an ignorant statement by some about what is happening with Cyclones. So I did not have to worry about trends, or the last 100 years because none of that matters. The statements said they were INCREASING in numbers and intensities. Both now proven false.
So please, read what I write. Then you can debate me intelligently. Or at least write something on point instead of wasting space with non sequiturs and scarecrows.
↧
Comment on Are academia and publishing destroying scientific innovation? by philjourdan
@bart – Still flogging the dead chakra algore horse. I already linked to the original trial transcripts. Do I need to waste the space again?
Save us all some time and trouble. Search up the thread. See the link to the UK Court site? Click on it.
I know you can.
And please! We are having such a nice conversation. Stop with the petty insults and juvenile ad hominems! We can discuss this as adults, right?
↧
Comment on Curry versus Trenberth by philjourdan
@Danley Wolfe
it’s about science but also policy with propagandist manipulation deeply involved.
It is also about who you let set the rules. By your own admission, you are letting the non-scientists set the rules. Today Spencer and Lindzen, tomorrow Curry, and Pielkes. Spencer and Lindzen are more than qualified – and objective – to present their case and testify. It is only when you allow the little “goebbels” to define the opposition that you fall into that trap.
↧
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by Bart R
David Springer | April 17, 2014 at 1:35 am |
I have no excuse for the horrible pun on suede-o-scientist.
Puns have no place on a serious science blog where spelling counts.
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by Bad Andrew
“Jim, you do not get to summarily decide who bears the burden of proof in science”
He does. He has the right and the duty to use his own judgement.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Forest climate and condensation by climatereason
Fan
So you post Central America February figures, make an obscure reference to kidney failure and totally fail to mention the cold weather in the US? If I posted short term figures for one area and then related it to an obscure abstract in order to ‘prove’ something, what would be your reaction.
This was not your finest hour and please post articles we can read, not abstracts.
At least when you post Hansen’s material (this is not an invitation) generally it is open access.
tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
