Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

Jim,

As far as I have understood GCM’s don’t care the least about no-feedback climate sensitivity. They can produce it as an additional output for people who wish to know that, but that’s the only connection.

More specifically it’s certainly not used as an input to the GCM’s. Rather the input may be directly the CO2 concentration and its influence on the radiative energy transfer.


Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

You appear to be assuming that ‘natural’ deviations are always in the direction of cooling.

No, I certainly don’t assume that but “variability” means that it’s sometimes up and somtimes down. When the variability has lead to an upwards deviation, it’s more likely that the next change is down and vice versa.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Peter317

0
0

Pekka,

That doesn’t explain, “…it’s more likely to have a strong warming period, when we start at a lower temperature”

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Steve Milesworthy

0
0

Peter, I take it you don’t know what the word “preponderance” means.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Pekka Pirilä

0
0

It does.

Change up is the more likely the lower the starting point is – and vice versa. That invloves the assumption that the average has not changed during the period, but that’s what I have already given as an assumption.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Joshua

0
0

Peter -

I believe that Pekka is working from the assumption that “lower temperatures” = below “average.”

Is this really so complicated?

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Joshua

0
0

Latimer -

The discussion here is w/r/t what Latif said.

Do you believe that Latif thinks that the ACO2 influence on post mid-century warming is bounded at 50%?

Before you answer, consider that he has also previously said:

“If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming.”

Or perhaps you agree with the author of the article Judith linked, and that Latif doesn’t realize what it is that he says?

Comment on Nullius in Verba by Jim Cripwell

0
0

Pekka you write “More specifically it’s certainly not used as an input to the GCM’s. Rather the input may be directly the CO2 concentration and its influence on the radiative energy transfer.”

Assuming you are correct, can you give me a reference as to how the GCMs convert change in radiative forcing into change in surface temperature.


Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Steve Milesworthy

0
0

It’s mendacious to claim that somehow Jochem Marotzke is turning sceptic (without realising it) when in the first part of the Der Spiegel interview he says:

“The strongest driver of climate change is clearly the CO2 increase. In addition, an increase of other greenhouse gases such as methane or nitrous oxide. A large role is played by aerosols, ie particles that float in the atmosphere. But the dominant effect comes from the CO2. And because CO2 remains in the atmosphere, this gas will also affect the climate significantly in the future. Unless we reduce the emissions of CO2.”

He then re-emphasises the need to take radical action to avoid 2C of warming and finally states “the scientific quality of the arguments in this book leaves much to be desired.”

(courtesy of Google translate of

http://nachrichten.t-online.de/klimawandel-abgesagt-die-kalte-sonne-im-experten-check/id_53915584/index

)

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by MattStat

0
0

WebHubTelescope: Chief is very upset that I have reduced his “irreducible complexity” to a simple stochastic behavior characterized by a single parameter — the mean value. You see, all that chaos and complexity that Chief keeps on harping about is just information entropy, and we can use all the techniques from information theory to help us understand the statistical physics. I showed how one can simplify the analysis in one case, and obviously it doesn’t sit well with him.

One of applied math’s grand challenges is to reduce complexity by applying innovative stochastic methods. I am applying some of these ideas to climate science and other areas, and evidently he doesn’t like my approach. The ultimate goal is to use the statistics at the aggregated macro-level to help solve problems and deal with uncertainty without having to rely on simulations at the micro-level. That was the heritage of the physics disciple known as statistical mechanics.

One of the goals in the modeling is to understand the role of CO2 in the single realization of the process over the last 150 years. The other goal is to predict the value of this single realization (the multidimensional value) over the next 50 to 100 years. Your modeling to date does not advance us toward achieving either goal. At best it might aid us to earlier detection of changes as they occur.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by pokerguy

0
0

It would be funny were it not so nauseating.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by MattStat

0
0

WebHubTelescope: I really appreciate (NOT) the way that Chief goes after the people that I consider the most sincerely thoughtful and introspective commenters, Fred, Joshua, and Pekka.

OK on Fred and Pekka, though I sometimes dispute them on particular points. I am astonished that you find merit in Joshua’s posts.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by GaryM

0
0

“Assumptions,” “estimates,” “Bayesian inferences.” Such is the stuff that “climate science” is made of, and on which we are supposed to decarbonize the world.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Bruce

0
0

Jim D: “The bottom line for climate is the energy balance to space.”

In 1910 to 1940 the balance was off because of natural variability and the earth warmed by .7C.

Why did that natural variability totally stop working post-1950. Was there a magic off button somewhere?

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by blouis79

0
0

Still waiting for a proper description of a theory by which trace amounts of CO2 are supposed to prevent escape of IR to space.

Quantification of absorption/reemission/warming in a lab would be useful.

In the meantime, it is just as likely that real heat generated from potential energy sources on earth adds to warming in an undeniable physical manner.

People may disagree with Nordell’s calculations, but the physics is absolutely real.


Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Bruce

0
0

I think we can agree that attempt by warmers to explain away pre-1950 warming are big failures.

But the idea that solar changes stopped after 1050 are absurd.

In the UK bright sunshine rose 8% at the same time as the CO2 warming supposedly occurred. And yet it is ignored.

http://i40.tinypic.com/xgfyok.jpg

As for volcanoes … how does that theory work again?

Katmai in 1912 ejected more material than Pinatubo. Yet the post 1910 warming really took off. There were a lot of VEI4 , 5 and 6 eruptions during 1910 to 1940.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_20th_Century

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Amazing. ‘When the frequency of an event varies as a power of some attribute of that event (e.g. its size), the frequency is said to follow a power law.’ We have probability vs wind energy in your frequency distribution chart – which is not a straight line.

Weins law retains the power distribution of Planck but shifts the frequency of the peak with temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiens_law.svg The intensity of emissions doesn’t vary if you graph it as frequency or wavelength. Assuming a sinusoidal wave moving at a fixed wave speed, wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency. So what? It doesn’t change either Planck’s law or Wein’s displacement law.

It was you who said that the Taylors series was a power law – it is not.

Nothing you say makes any sense – you freely bring in concepts that are not real or valid to anyone who has any familiarity with the concepts. It is just verbiage.

Again – you have a frequency distribution of wind speed. So what? It has been done many, many times before.

‘Atmospheric and oceanic forcings are strongest at global equilibrium scales of 107 m and seasons to millennia. Fluid mixing and dissipation occur at microscales of 10−3 m and 10−3 s, and cloud particulate transformations happen at 10−6 m or smaller. Observed intrinsic variability is spectrally broad band across all intermediate scales. A full representation for all dynamical degrees of freedom in different quantities and scales is uncomputable even with optimistically foreseeable computer technology. No fundamentally reliable reduction of the size of the AOS dynamical system (i.e., a statistical mechanics analogous to the transition between molecular kinetics and fluid dynamics) is yet envisioned.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

Show me a fundamentally reliable reduction in the size of AOS dynamical systems – I won’t be impressed. I will just think it is more rubbish.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by blouis79

0
0

Tyndall has been misinterpreted for 150 years. Try reading what he actually wrote and have a good hard think about it. “Failure to transmit” IR waves through a long thin tube does NOT equal “absorption of heat energy”. Tyndall said nothing about heating.

One day, someone in physics will repeat tyndall’s experiments and properly quantify the (probably small if any) proportion of energy retained as heat, since it is just as likely to be remitted instantaneously. Even if it shared by conduction with other non-IR absorber/emitters, CO2 will get it back and re-radiate it.

Comment on Week in review 2/11/12 by Jim D

0
0

Bruce, another part of that energy balance is the sun. Since the sunspot frequency tripled in the 1910-1950 period, it is reasonable to suppose the sun had something to do with at least 0.2 degrees of that increase. Since 1950, the sun hasn’t been changing much until the very recent fade which might take it back to 1910 values.

Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Hi Chris,

The ocean data is almost entirely suspect. The heat that should be there is showing up in the deep oceans > 700m in ARGO. Whoops.

Sensitivity in chaotic systems is not linear. Near the shift or tipping points climate is theoretically very sensitive – away from those points not so much. So the question is – are we near a tipping point? Well – do you feel lucky punk?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images