WebHubTelescope (@WHUT): “This stuff by Tisdale is all wrong.”
Hmm. I quoted Trenberth and then I expanded on and illustrated what he said. And somehow, according to you, I’m wrong. Not too mysteriously, you couldn’t explain how or why I was wrong. The reason: I’m not wrong. What I have presented are ENSO fundamentals. Nothing more, nothing less.
Have a good day.
Jim, I’m not arguing that sulphates don’t reflect light. I’m arguing that the effect isn’t noticable regionally but is given credit for a considerable amount globally. Don’t you think if China were cooling the world we should notice a cool China?
Say, ‘which naughty band of human -conjured spookies
will win out?’
S.Mosher wrote :
It is very hard for any skeptic to actually make a contribution to science here unless they actually come up with a different governing equation.
It is not enough to question a simplifying governing equation, one actually has to off up alternatives. That is, IF you want to actually do something productive.
Put another way it would take a person with enormous social power to reframe the entire debate away from this governing equation
.
It is wrong on many levels but unfortunately this kind of argument is often used in uninformed circles.
The wrongest part isi the word governing
Some people are under the illusion that ∆T = λ ∆F governs something. But it doesn’t.
No need to be a skeptic to write the real and different governing equations – there are 5 of them. The first one is :
div(V) = 0 where V is the velocity field.
…
Is S.Mosher able to write the remaining 4, I omit ?
I doubt it but claim no credit – they have been known by almost everybody but a few non scientists for 200 years.
.
So actually S.Moshers puts the science upside down. The real question is : As every scientist (skeptic and non skeptic alike) knows what the real governing equations are and yes they are pretty compelling , is it possible to derive meanigfully ∆T = λ ∆F from them ?
But here the answer is known too, no it is not.
The simplest reason is that the governing equations are believed to have a unique solution (this has not yet be proven).
However ∆T = λ ∆F is ill posed and has an infinity of solutions due to the fact that the postulated “equilibrium” field Teq which cannot be measured because it never occurs can be defined arbitrarily among an infinity of possible choices.
.
So untill and unless somebody shows how the equation ∆T = λ ∆F can be derived from the governing equations, how it can have a unique solution and in which way it could be relevant for anything what happens in the real world, it will be only word games.
S.Mosher also wrote :
or it would take a alternative simplifying equation that was more compelling. I dont see anyone doing that kind of work.
.
Here my advice is to study more physics and read much more because there are thousands of scientists doing just this kind of work.
I suggest to start with the following names : H.Navier, R.Poincaré, R.Temam, J.Yorke, D.Ruelle, F.Takens, A.Kolmogorov, C.Foias, M.Ghil, E.Lorenz, R.Thom.
These are just the giants and there is more but it would be a good start.
“And as I showed you upthread, the OHC in the IPWP has NOT been undergoing a long-term rise.”
—-
Thank you for “showing” me this, but I will trust the data and research from actual experts who would completely disagree with this. Hit the books, do some reading, and until then, keep your “showing’ to yourself.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-009-0526-7
“Sorry, there are not enough seats at the table for every nutjob.”
Yup. There’s enough self-important academic nutjobs to fill the table already arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Meanwhile real scientists and engineers doing discovery and invention leading to useful products that improve the human condition are at a different table.
We who are not invited seem to be doing a bang-up job of casting doubt on anthropogenic global warming pseudo-science.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx
Your side is losing hearts and minds, Mosher. You get that, tough guy? Denial is more than river in Egypt.
Tony said:
“I was reading an old book that described the astonishing amount of energy in a hurricane. This presumably is a means of releasing heat from the warm ocean to the atmosphere? Have you ever seen any figures that confirm the amount?”
——
Of course typhoons/hurricanes are amazingly potent and efficient means by which massive amounts of energy are transferred from ocean to atmosphere. Satellite images of the ocean surface taken in infra red after the passage of a hurricane literally show a trail along the hurricane path of a cooler ocean surface where the heat was “sucked” out of the ocean as though by a large heat vacuum cleaner.
Of course the total heat varies depending on size and duration, but on average a hurricane can transfer on the magnitude of 5 x 10^19 joules/day.
See http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html.
It absolutely must be kept in mind, really at every juncture of climate discussion, that the vast majority of the energy in the atmosphere, all the time, comes from ocean to atmosphere latent and sensible heat fluxes. Energy goes from sun to ocean to atmosphere– strongly in that direction. Any thought of the atmosphere warming the ocean goes grossly against the basic and strong thermodynamics going the other way. It is the composition of the atmosphere, clouds, dust, aerosols, sea ice etc. that control the rate of flow through this thermodynamic chain with greenhouse gases, wind, and sea ice dictating the rate of flow out of the ocean. Increase greenhouse gases and the rate of flow is reduced as it serves as a strong external forcing.
ENSO is not an external forcing, but only internal variability in the strong ocean to atmosphere sensible and latent heat flux that may be influenced by an external forcing, be that solar, volcanic, or greenhouse gas changes.
What are you babbling about? There is still no empirical-statistical evidence for the alleged “pause”/”hiatus”/”stop”, or whatever you want to call it, of global warming .
Thus, I take from this that “ceresco kid” is an enemy of free sprech and who thinks that defense of free speech makes one a “left wing nut”.
Looks like janny p p is still stuck in the first phase: denial.
Just a friendly reminder: the pause is killing the cause.
There is truth to that GaryM, also what we’re seeing is cause fatigue. I don’t doubt that many AGW conformers and formers like Dr. Curry and Bengtsson thought the keys to the city were suppose to be delivered decades ago. Some like Mann and Trenberth are willing to live in the jungle another 20 years or more, dreaming of installing reeducation camps and a NWO when the final victory is achieved in their imaginations.
Others might be more correctly wondering how climate change advocacy crimes against humanity charges might actually come down in the future and how they and the greenshirt movement is going to be treated in history books. Wimpy as it is some are catching on.
More minimally when the big fire-up-the-greenshirt-troops fails in November and the Senate is lost we’ll see what use the tactics of EPA authority abuse will look like then. I see weeping in “Che” shirts as the XL gets approved and President Klaatu in the WH talks about leading the North American carbon boom as part of his legacy.
Jan P. Perlwitz: The rest appears to be simply the classical heat and kitchen problem, with which he was confronted.
I think you might be right. Unless we are informed of the exact wording of the emails and other “threats” we can’t tell. A government official who threatens to take his name off a paper is not McCarthyism; while on federal grants I have threatened to take my name off papers, and my co-authors did not suffer at all (granted, I am not in the least prominent.)
What is interesting is the degree to which Dr Bengtsson feels he has been onerously criticized for doing something that he thought was pro-social, namely engaging with people who disagreed with the majority opinion.
. And when Lennart Bengtsson decides to join a right wing group of political and ideological hacks whose purpose is to spread disinformation and lies about climate science, something that directly affects climate scientists and their research, and when the response to this public political decision and statement is massive criticisms and political decisions by other climate scientists, Judith Curry is complaining about these “attacks” and labels this “Climate McCarthyism”.
Your characterization of GWPF is fallacious. They are a self-selected group of people who, like the mostly self-selected writers for the IPCC reviews, write summaries of the science, and summaries of the limitations of the science, and proposals for public policy. They sometimes highlight the evidence that the IPCC writers choose to downweight or ignore entirely; and they are less enthusiastic about globally coordinated wealth distribution programs IPCC (and poor countries) seem to favor, and more respectful toward economic development and local solutions to pressing local problems (of the sort that socialistic governments like Cuba and Venezuela tend to disrespect.) They are not “right-wing”, “hacks”, whose “purpose” is to “spread disinformation.” That is the adolescent caricature that the critics of Bengtsson evidently subscribe to. They only look “right-wing” to people who are way left of center. To us centrists, they are somewhat “center-right.”
Pierre-Normand says, May 10, 2014 at 10:40 pm:
“The figure doesn’t show that the ENSO cycle correlates with anything but the deviations from the underlying warming trend. Maybe ENSO contributes causally to that trend but the figure doesn’t so much as suggest it.”
What ‘underlying warming trend’?!
A ‘trend’ as in ‘trendline’ is something you apply to a plotted dataset as a statistical tool. It’s not a physical phenomenon.
There would be no upward-tilting trendline to apply if it weren’t for the three sudden upward shifts in global temps since 1970 (1978/79, 1988 and 1998).
The ENTIRE global warming from 1970 till today is contained within those three steps, Philip-Normand. The rest of the time? NOTHING. Global temps simply follow the general lead of NINO3.4.
This is what the DATA from the real world tells us.
Observational data trumps your preconceived ideas of causation any day, Pierre-Normand. The ‘underlying warming trend’ exists only inside your head.
Are there any “alarmist” organizations that have scientists as members?
@kim – it is the only thing he does well.
Forgiveness and healing from the trauma of Climategate emails may be aided by sharing:
a.) Aston’s warning on 12 Dec 1922 of the danger of transforming Earth into a star by uncontrollable release of nuclear energy [See page 20, last paragraph of Aston's Nobel Prize Lecture]:
http://veksler.jinr.ru/becquerel/text/books/aston-lecture.pdf
b.) Information on uncontrolled chaos in the closing days of WWII
_ 1. Allied atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki;
_ 2. Japan exploded an atomic bomb off the east coast of Konan, Korea; http://tinyurl.com/my5zsty
_ 3. Stalin’s USSR troops captured Japan’s atomic bomb facility and took scientists and technicians to Russia; http://tinyurl.com/n3agdan and
_ 4. A young nuclear geochemist took secret possession of Japan’s atomic bomb plans . . . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm
FEAR of death forged the alliance of world leaders and scientists that Climategate emails exposed in Nov 2009.
This must be why Montfort and his likes never have to offer anything else than some blubber about “denial” and similar ad hominem, and never present the empirical statistical evidence for the alleged “pause”/”hiatus”/”stop” of global warming, asserted by them.
It it really was as clear as they pretend to be, why do they notoriously refuse to show the statistical metrics based on which it could be shown that there was “pause”/”hiatus”/”stop” of global warming?
Best idea Mosh has had in a long time, and that’s really saying something. Why can’t we just put you in charge?
