OK, so it was the words “top half” you were complaining about. It may be more. The anvil base is at the freezing level (look up radar bright band), maybe 10000 feet, and the tops are 50000-60000 feet, so maybe the top 80% is more accurate.
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by stevefitzpatrick
Judith,
I particularly enjoyed the “Curry for dinner” post. Did you laugh while reading like I did?
The comment section sounds like a bunch of VERY angry people; it’s pretty clear they understand they are losing the argument, and are really unhappy about it.
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Robert Williams Wood was a notorious skeptic who rejoiced in questioning dogma’s. He then designed experiments to test the underlying assumptions in theory, rather than thinking about it really, really, hard.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Edim
What is hindering the surface oceans from equilibrating with atmospheric CO2? Air-sea CO2 exchange is primarily controlled by diiference in CO2 partial pressures (and the exchange coefficient). Even the surface oceans contain much more CO2 than the atmosphere. The equilibration time must be shorter than the residence time (for the individual molecules).
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
<blockquote>The anvil base is at the freezing level (look up radar bright band), maybe 10000 feet, and the tops are 50000-60000 feet, so maybe the top 80% is more accurate.</blockquote>Actually, the freezing level is usually more like 4-5000 <b>meters</b> for tropical hot towers. But that doesn't matter: just because a rising cloud of water droplets reaches the freezing level doesn't mean it freezes.
Don't you know <b>anything?</b>
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
AK, the bright band for US storms is more where I said it was. In the tropics it may be higher, but so are the tops. The bright band is where those ice particles I mentioned in the anvil fall and melt into raindrops, so it is actually from melting.
↧
Comment on Week in review by David L. Hagen
<b>The Focus on Uncertainty</b>
Fascinating:
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565" rel="nofollow">Steven E. Koonin</a> <blockquote>Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on.</blockquote>
<a href="https://news.vice.com/article/there-is-some-uncertainty-in-climate-science-and-thats-a-good-thing?utm_source=vicenewstwitter" rel="nofollow">Tamsin Edwards</a>
<blockquote>“Uncertainty is the engine of science, driving our quest to understand the universe.” </blockquote>
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
The deep fat fried tree rings, bored to a crisp, are snappier.
=======================
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
That <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshooting_top" rel="nofollow">Overshooting top</a> I was trying to get you to notice in the picture you linked to is the top end of the main updraft of the storm. The cloudy air that makes it up is usually mixed-phase, AFAIK.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
Faustino,
Read yr letter in ‘The Australian’ today re attracting credible
leaders with honesty, wisdom and integrity …Sigh, U wish serf,
u wish. (Certainly wasn’tso with our last OZ Guvuhmint.)
↧
Comment on Week in review by beththeserf
Yer won’t get no pudding if yer don’t eat yr greens.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
If the top is colder than -40 C, there is unlikely to be much, if any, water even in those clouds due to homogeneous freezing.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by AK
<blockquote>The point raised by Mann and the alternative perspective provided by our paper does raise the broader issues of whether you can separate forced from intrinsic variability, and if so, how to do this.</blockquote>I would say intuitively no. The effects of <i>"forcing"</i> on each of the mechanisms involved in the <i>"stadium wave"</i> would likely be different, and until you can actually account for them in theroetical terms, how could you predict the effect of increased pCO2 on each?
I certainly don't see how it would be warranted to assume that the primary effect of <i>"greenhouse forcing"</i> would be linearly additive.
Oh, and congratulations!
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by climatereason
rob
the original reason for the interest was this graph posted by Fan in support of one of his arguments
http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
he obviously did not realise at the time that it showed temperatures rising from as early as 1700
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by TJA
See, like that comment. I have been around for several months on this site, maybe a year. Are you citing “facts not in evidence?” Hey, that’s all you need to jump to a conclusion.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Tony,
Just got to that page myself – below. Comes with not reading FOMBS I suppose. To me it shows vigorous natural variation.
Cheers
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Steven Mosher
judith never engages critics.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn
Rob Ellison,
You wrote –
“‘Borehole temperatures are used as temperature proxies. Since heat transfer through the ground is slow, temperature measurements at a series of different depths down the borehole, adjusted for the effect of rising heat from inside the Earth, can be “inverted” (a mathematical formula to solve matrix equations) to produce a non-unique series of surface temperature values. The solution is “non-unique” because there are multiple possible surface temperature reconstructions that can produce the same borehole temperature profile. In addition, due to physical limitations, the reconstructions are inevitably “smeared”, and become more smeared further back in time.”
I draw your attention to the expression “non unique series of surface temperature values”. To me, this indicates that any of several non-unique (different) values can provide the same borehole temperature profile. Which one is correct? The problem appears to be solved by adjustment. Adjust your assumptions, until you obtain the surface temperature you want. Another Warmist pseudo-scientific attempt to peddle nonsense.
It amazes me that people don’t seem to give any thought at all to the nonsense they promulgate as fact. Once again, it’s assumption piled on estimate, adjustments, smoothing, expert opinion, sigmas, best judgement, keep the grant funds flowing.
I suppose it’s too embarrassing to admit it’s all about as useful as a treemometer.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by RiHo08
Rob Ellison
LinK: http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=519:2:::::P1_study_id:12621
error message.
↧
Comment on Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century by Michael
“On top of a uniform linear trend, they identified an oscillatory looking wiggle….”
What is that?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
