A climate sensitivity of 1.7 degrees is consistent with a further 20 year hiatus, if the AMO gives us a sinewave of +/-0.1.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/f8.jpg?w=750&h=497
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by AJ
“Eli thinks that if you have to use a single function to describe the processes, a stretched exponential might not be bad.”
So that’s what you call it. I was calling it a “Modified Exponential Decay Curve.”
Thanks!
https://sites.google.com/site/climateadj/cmip5-tas-emulation
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by beththeserf
In naychur
lots of swamps
of despond
in which ter
get mired.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn
“helping students with physics and mathematics for about 50 years”
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by willard (@nevaudit)
Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_paradox
You did your best to warn Brandon.
Let’s hope Matthew will let me move away slowly from the horse.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Mike Flynn
Curt,
I will respond point by point.
“Mike: In your comment of September 24, 2014 at 11:31 pm, you say “the temperature of liquid nitrogen is nothing like the conditions in outer space. The temperature of liquid nitrogen is quite high by comparison.”
Please work the numbers! While ambient radiation at room temperatures (290 – 300K) is about 400 W/m2, at liquid nitrogen’s boiling point of 77K, it is only 2 W/m2, not significantly different from zero.”
Curt –
Temperature of a vacuum – no degrees at all. It’s a vacuum. The nominal temperature of outer space is around 3K. Liquid nitrogen is hot by comparison. I’m right. You’re wrong.
“Then you say, “In fact, the major heat problem with man made satellites – at least the inhabited ones, and including EVA suits – is overheating.” Actually, no. In a cold ambient, with limiting energy supply, it is far smarter to insulate for the worst case, then selectively cool when not in the worst case. That is why EVA suits employ about 7 layers of radiative insulation, then have a cooling radiator in the backpack that can be used as needed when not in worst-case conditions.
(People use the same idea when going outside on cold winter days. Wear enough insulation for the expected worst case, then bypass as needed. When I ski, I put on enough insulation to keep me warm on the ski lift at the top of the mountain in wind. Often by the time I ski to the bottom, I have opened up a couple of layers and I’m sweating.)
Anyway, it is not an “irrelevancy”. The point is that the level of ambient radiation is often critical in computing energy balances and the resulting temperatures. When I first studied engineering heat transfer in the 1970s, the texts said to use for the clear night sky an “effective blackbody temperature of about -20C (253K). You get very different results for energy balances and resulting temperatures with this than using the 3K of deep space.”
Curt –
You may care to check what NASA says. Here is just a tiny sample relating to EVA cut and pasted –
“Why are EVA suits white?
Astronauts use white spacesuits when they go on spacewalks to do work outside the space shuttle or International Space Station. White was chosen for a few reasons. One of the most important reasons is that white reflects heat so that the astronaut doesn’t get too warm. Astronauts can get too cold as well, but that is usually in their hands. Therefore, the spacesuits have heaters in their gloves.”
Your irrelevant and misleading analogy about skiing is a typical Warmist ploy to mislead and confuse, and has little to do with NASA’s continued efforts to solve overheating problems cost effectively.
“You say, “All gases are radiatively active.” Again, you have no concept of the numbers. N2, O2, and Ar are many orders of magnitude less active in the far infrared than CO2 and H20 are — so much so that in comparison, they can be treated as having zero radiative activity in these bands without any noticeable error.”
Curt –
Just a couple of examples. First, put your hand in front of a heat gun blowing hot air heated to 300C, and then tell me that the oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and all the rest are actually at different temperatures.
Alternatively, go to your nearest purveyor of gases, and detect the type of gas in a bottle by examining the bottle temperature, which will be the same as the contents. Further, let me know whether the bottle is full or empty, and what pressure is within it, by using the numbers.
Rubbish. You can heat oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, Bombay Gin or anything else, to any temperature at all, short of plasma conversion or similar.
“Then my jaw dropped when you said, “If it were otherwise, the gas would have no temperature, as this is a measure of radiative activity.” No, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance, radiatively active or not. This is just basic, basic stuff.”
Curt –
I trust your jaw has returned to its accustomed position. Do you suffer from dropsy, much?
If an atom is not radiating EMR, by definition it is at absolute zero. Maybe you are unaware of how light interacts with matter. As you may be a Warmist, I am using the word light as Einstein, Feynman, and others do, to encompass the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum. Your knowledge of heat, temperature and so on, may not be as all encompassing as you would assume. I do not know. Maybe you were only taught basic, basic, stuff because your instructors thought you had potential to be a Warmist – who appear to have little grasp of reality in many instances. This may help to explain why the vast majority of Warmists are second and third raters.
“Finally, you say, “You are still unable to heat anything by surrounding it with CO2. Sure, it will cool more slowly when insulated, but cool it will.” Here you simply demonstrate your inability to perform the simplest energy balance calculations, an in the opening weeks of an undergraduate thermodynamics course. You are confusing the case where there is no separate power source with one where there is (like the sun…)”
Curt –
You exhibit all the characteristics of the Warmist, I admit. You avoid the laws of thermodynamics, which is some respects is reasonable, given the difficulty of rigorous definition. But to proceed to depend on handwaving and specious nonsense about the simplicity of energy balance calculations, demonstrates the Warmist disconnect from reality better than anything I could say.
In conclusion, on my side I have facts and replicable observations, supported by the theory and experimental work of Einstein, Feynman and others.
On your side, you have unverifiable assertions, supported by quasi-religious Warmist handwaving and fervour. In other words, nothing much at all.
I win, you lose. The world has cooled, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn
“Climate sensitivity, W/m2/K, is for many, myself included, the key to answering some key climate questions”
Imagine, like Dr. Evil, you have access to a giant, tunable laser located on a giant, fast moving hover ship, and you can radiate the Earths surface with, on average, 10 W/m2 of radiation.
Do you get the same about of heating if you radiate with exactly the same power, uv, blue, green, red, near IR or far IR radiation?
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by DocMartyn
maksimovich, global dude, global. Upper 700m temps flat, so if they are under the glare of an increased heat flux then more hot water has to go down to the depths and, in a zero sum game, cold water from below 700m must come up. The rate at which, increasing, CO2 is taken from the atmosphere by the oceans should have declined (if you buy the whole chemical equilibria spiel).
↧
Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Steven Mosher
nice willard.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by AK
The answer is implicit in this old post at RC:
And another thing: when you “radiate the Earths surface” is it roughly even over the surface, or is it at a similar angle to Solar irradiation? Including seasons?
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Jim D
Matthew Marler, this is a period that covers 70% of the anthropogenic addition to the atmosphere, so it is very representative of the total effect. Regarding delay, you can take 10 or 20 years and the sensitivity depends how long you take. Lovejoy showed that the correlation has a broad peak over the varying delays of 10- 20 years, so it is not clear which delay to apply, but a delay correlates better than the unlagged value.
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Jim D
Perhaps one way to look at this is that the anthropogenic addition time-scale is currently 1% per year, or 100-year time scale. Clearly natural absorption is not keeping up with this, but can reduce it by half, so maybe its time scale is 200 years.
↧
Comment on Week in review by pdtillman
From SCIENCE:
A woman in the eye of the political storm over climate change
Curry thinks paleoclimate proxies “are garbage. Not all of them, most of them.”
You got that right, and are being polite, actually. Some are so torqued as to be borderline fraudulent. See Richard Muller’s “before and after” charts of “hide the decline.” Remarkable.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/22/black-tuesday-of-climate-science/
Muller: “I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read any more. You’re not allowed to do this, in science. This is not up to our standards. I get infuriated with colleagues of mine, who say “Well, you know, it’s a human field. Do you make mistakes?” And then I show them this. And they say “Err… no. That’s not acceptable.”
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20101001_m3
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by pdtillman
@ Richard Drake,
“What a week. Congratulations for your parts in it.”
Indeed, and seconded.
Nolo permittere illegitimi carborundum!
(sign on Barry Goldwater’s Senate desk)
↧
Comment on Week in review by Lucifer
I don’t think so.
Those silly charts the ipcc puts out about ‘level of scientific understanding':
are probably accurate – the radiative physics are well measured, reproduceable in a lab, and pretty well understood.
What’s missing is the understanding and more important unpredictability of the general circulation which can modify net shortwave as well as outgoing longwave.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
There is no sceptic science – there is just science and eventually it leads somewhere real. The purpose of the Borg collective meme factory that is ATTP is just that – gatekeepers inculcating groupthink. It is the reason dissent is not permitted.
The science is not as Joseph imagines – because it is not as portrayed in these echo chambers.
↧
Comment on Week in review by RiHo08
Judith Curry
You seem obsessed by self punishment mentioning Gavin again and again.
A masochistic tendency perhaps? There is cognitive therapy available of course.
A reminder to me of the religious flagellates of yesteryear.
He is totally unbelievable for ANYTHING he says. He has lied before. There is nothing stopping him from lying again, and again, and again…..
Referencing him is just, to me, a throw away. Waste of time and effort.
↧
↧
Comment on Lewis and Curry: Climate sensitivity uncertainty by Rob Ellison
Oh -and in case anyone else is confused – I discovered a new nuclear fusion energy source and named it after myself.
Life’s too short for bad coffee
Rob Ellison
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
There are very few climate scientists with the integrity and courage to be on the skeptic side.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
What I mean by “skeptic: is being skeptical of AGW and its effects as described by the IPCC.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
