30 Curries? One picocurry has more content than all the alarmists combined.
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by dynam01
↧
↧
Comment on An alternative metric to assess global warming by Hockey Schtick
“In order to aid in the analyses of equation (2), the combined effects of the radiative forcings and feedbacks over specified time periods (e.g., decades) could be estimated by running the climate models with a set of realizations with and without specific radiative forcings (e.g., CO2). One could also do assessments of each vertical profile in a global model at snapshots in time with the added forcings since the last snapshot to estimate the radiative forcing change.”
This recent paper is of interest in this regard:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034016/article
Internal variability of Earth’s energy budget simulated by CMIP5 climate models
OPEN ACCESS
M D Palmer and D J McNeall
Show affiliations
M D Palmer and D J McNeall 2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 034016
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034016
We analyse a large number of multi-century pre-industrial control simulations from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) to investigate relationships between: net top-of-atmosphere radiation (TOA), globally averaged surface temperature (GST), and globally integrated ocean heat content (OHC) on decadal timescales. Consistent with previous studies, we find that large trends (~0.3 K dec−1) in GST can arise from internal climate variability and that these trends are generally an unreliable indicator of TOA over the same period. In contrast, trends in total OHC explain 95% or more of the variance in TOA for two-thirds of the models analysed; emphasizing the oceans’ role as Earth’s primary energy store. Correlation of trends in total system energy (TE ≡ time integrated TOA) against trends in OHC suggests that for most models the ocean becomes the dominant term in the planetary energy budget on a timescale of about 12 months. In the context of the recent pause in global surface temperature rise, we investigate the potential importance of internal climate variability in both TOA and ocean heat rearrangement. The model simulations suggest that both factors can account for O (0.1 W m−2) on decadal timescales and may play an important role in the recently observed trends in GST and 0–700 m (and 0–1800 m) ocean heat uptake.
↧
Comment on An alternative metric to assess global warming by Greg
Most people live on the surface of the planet, preferably a dry bit, so this means the most important factors to society are surface temps and sea level (by this I mean the wet one measured at the coast, not the theoretical phantom GMSL provided by CU Bolder that hovers mysteriously above the waves and piles up under mid ocean barometers).
In terms of calculation, once OHC errors are realistically estimated it could be a useful method of calorimetry. But we don’t have “decades” of data we perhaps one decade.
Once again any instrumental readings that do not fit the message get adjusted out post hoc.
↧
Comment on An alternative metric to assess global warming by David L. Hagen
Nir Shaviv similarly evaluates: <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.1959&rep=rep1&type=pdf" rel="nofollow">Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing</a>
<blockquote>We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one</blockquote>
↧
Comment on An alternative metric to assess global warming by Pierre-Normand
“There is, of course, another way for “energy to enter or exit the whole system”: increased SW reflection from slightly increased cloud cover.”
That’s not “another way”. Albedo changes (either from ice/snow, aerosols or clouds) are contributors of the TOA balance.
↧
↧
Comment on Stavins and Tol on IPCC WG3 by Newport_Mac
Dude — less caffeine,
“Stavins and Tol on IPCC WG3″
They are reporting Facts not Fiction!
Focus on the Facts!
↧
Comment on An alternative metric to assess global warming by RiHo08
Something caught my eye and I didn’t understand:
“As summarized in NRC (2005) “the concept of radiative forcing is based on the hypothesis that the change in global annual mean surface temperature is proportional to the imposed global annual mean forcing, independent of the nature of the applied forcing. The fundamental assumption underlying the radiative forcing concept is that the surface and the troposphere are strongly coupled by convective heat transfer processes; that is,
THE EARTH-TROPOSPHERE SYSTEM IS IN A STATE OF RADIATIVE-CONVECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM.”
There was something that gave me pause:
1) in a chaotic system like weather, can one really assume equilibrium?
2) Am I correct in thinking that without the assumption of equilibrium, the physics applied to a chaotic weather system may not be appropriate?
↧
Comment on An alternative metric to assess global warming by manacker
Pierre-Normand
It is silly IMO to make very much out of a SL rate of rise of 3mm/year over the past two decades or so for two reasons.
Comparing it to past rates of SL raise is an “apples” and “oranges” comparison.
Current rates are measured by satellite altimetry (a dicey method, to start off with, when measuring a heaving ocean, as the NOAA scientists themselves have conceded). As Carl Wunsch et al. 2007 put it:
The widely quoted altimetric global average values may well be correct, but the accuracies being inferred in the literature are not testable by existing in situ observations. Useful estimation of the global averages is extremely difficult given the realities of space–time sampling and model approximations. Systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change: published values and error bars should be used very cautiously.
Then it measures the entire ocean except regions near coastlines and polar regions, which cannot be captured by satellite altimetry, while the tide gauge record measures SL near selected coastlines, where we humans live.
The tide gauge record (Holgate 2007) showed decadal swings from -1 mm/year to +5 mm/year over the 20th C, with an average for the first half of the 20thC of 2.0 mm/year and 1.4 mm/year for the second half, averaging 1.7 mm/year over the entire century.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3206/3144596227_545227fbae_b.jpg
The latest measurements (3.4 mm/year or 2.4 mm/year) are not outside the range measured by another method during the 20thC.
I would not read too much into either the slightly faster decadal rate prior to the latest slowdown, nor to the latest slowdown in rate.
Max
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Wagathon
As Dr. John Christy told us just last week, having lived among the world’s poor, their lives there are brutal and short. Those who kick the poor in the teeth while pretending to soak the rich do not merit the votes from either.
~Congressman John Linder (Hearing On Protecting Lower-Income Families… March 12, 2009)
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by sunshinehours1
Michael, there was no Science. It was politics and a big con. Trillions have been wasted on a scam.
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by timg56
Josh,
Isn’t it so much easier to criticize without reading the material? Just toss out your usual Curry bashing rant.
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by timg56
Don,
At least Stefan has the excuse of not having English as his primary language.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Howard
I agree 100% with Michael… it must be noon
Anybody with a strong field background in geology immediately knew that the Hockey Stick was “not even wrong”. It’s over and has been for years, even before the Christy testimony which sounds more like preaching to the choir than science.
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Wagathon
Mathematically speaking, Western academia’s support of Michael Mann’s hockey stick has been like witchdoctors huddled around a green bubbling brew of magic potion.
↧
Comment on The Curry factor: 30 to 1 by timg56
Bart,
Trying to get a bit part in the next Lewandowski Recursive Fury paper?
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Postman1
Redistribution of wealth to a UN run world government?
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Howard
Your post is absolute proof that you are a bald faced liar.
↧
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Wagathon
As a religious leader Mann perhaps had a great deal of influence over his sycophantic followers. But as a scientist you are not supposed to teach how to produce a flood of hockey stick-shaped graphs by simply feeding white noise into a mathematical model that works like a maniacal global warming doomsday machine stuck in maximum overdrive.
White noise, has equal power density across the entire frequency spectrum, that is, it has constant energy at all frequencies. When this is graphically represented, white noise has a flat power spectral density. In a practical example, white noise is what is used to refer to that steady, even soothing sound produced when tuning in to an unused radio or TV frequency. White noise has an equal amount of energy per frequency band in contrast to pink noise, which has an equal amount of energy per octave. Pink noise has a frequency spectrum that is flat in logarithmic space. The power density of pink noise, compared with white noise, decreases by 3 dB (decibels) per octave. It is said that pink noise is the most soothing sound to the human ear. Pink noise has the same frequency distribution as falling rain.
Red noise is similar to pink noise, but it has relatively more energy at lower frequencies than pink noise. Red noise has a power density that decreases 6 dB per octave as the frequency increases. Of course, red noise was named after a connection with red light, which is on the low end of the visible light spectrum. Mathematically speaking, integrating white noise produces red noise. Red noise in the paleoclimatology context comes from the fact that tree rings have correlation from year to year, that is, if a tree grows well in a given year, it will store carbohydrates and will tend to have a good year of growth the following year as well. Red noise in the paleoclimatology context is modeled by a first-order autoregressive model.
(See, Edward J. Wegman, et al., Ad Hoc Committee Report On The ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction)
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by michael hart
What made you start again? The bonhomie?
:)
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Wagathon
Amazingly, Western academics don’t even need data — especially if they are paleoclimate dendrologists (and their tree rings are not telling them what they want to hear) – to be acclaimed global warming doomsday prognosticators with the ear of Leftist politicians and bureaucrats in the highest levels of government. Simply construct models that turn white noise into noisy red hockey sticks. “In general,” says Wegman, “we found [Mann’s methods] to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms [by Mann's skeptical critics] to be valid and compelling… It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community… Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
↧
