The Bose-Einstein debacle is a good example. Jimmy Dee will insist with utter confidence that Bose-Einstein statistics don’t work at room temperature – it reverts to Boltzmann at a little above absolute zero. They do – and it doesn’t. It relates to the characteristic energy states of the particle regardless of the temperature.
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Lang
Faustino, I want to change the wording on point 2
2. I don’t understand how economists can argue to use discount rates that are equivalent to and less than the long-run average risk free rate of return if we recognise that the decision to mitigate GHG emissions is far from risk free. It seems to me that implementing policies which will forces huge investments to mitigate GHG emissions is a high risk strategy. As you have pointed out many times the best strategy is to build our capacity to deal with whatever problems occur and remain highly flexible (one of the best ways is to build wealth) . Forcing us to commit to high cost strategies that are hugely economically damaging for all this century, on the belief we are going to improve the lot of people centuries from now, is high risk. It seems to me the\ the discount rate should be that used for a high risk investment.
Another risk is that we don’t know if GHG emissions are net beneficial or net damaging.
Another risk is it is very expensive to change strategy once it has been implemented. If the world implemented a carbon tax and later realised it won’t succeed (as many people already realise), it would then be difficult and costly to stop it and implement a different policy. Australia provides an example of those difficulties now.
Given all these investment risks how can it be concluded that policies requiring massive investment in GHG emissions reduction should be justified on the basis of a risk free discount rate?
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Geoff Sherrington
Jim,
So if CO2 is blown in to fill the South American desert skies, why is water vapour not blown in also?
Geoff.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison
Here’s the situation with greenhouse gases. It is exactly this – repeated many gazillion times in the atmosphere. More greenhouse gas molecules interact with more IR photons heating the atmosphere. Kinetic energy kicks up heating the surrounding O2 and N2 molecules. This is a pretty quick process. What changes is scattering of IR photons. Photons are remitted in all directions – including down – in a process called scattering. The IR photons at the surface make the heat gradient from the surface to the atmosphere smaller than it would otherwise be and less heat is lost from the surface. Land and oceans warm.
It happens in theory and in the laboratory – but how about the atmosphere. The photons are retarded in the atmosphere for long enough to achieve a local thermodynamic equilibrium and then emissions step up. So the well known emission spectra can’t actually be seen at TOA. What you can see is the increased scattering by looking at the Earth through a space borne aperture. If you compare snapshots at different times – and do a brightness calculation – you get this. This is experimental proof that there is an effect in the atmosphere as theorized.
The oceans and land continue to warm until the surface losses again balances the incoming energy. This theoretically takes some time – although it seems to clearly follow changes in net TOA radiant flux.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Fernando Leanme
What´s the source for the graph?
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Rob Ellison
Not even sure what that movie is. It seems to have Jason Statham – so lot’s of fight scenes.
This is what I meant –
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Fernando Leanme
Oceanoker, sometimes my intuition works rather well. I don´t have a concise and accurate description the procedure used to perform an ocean temperature reanalysis, nor do I have the ability to question those who perform them, therefore the process is a bit of a mistery to me. I know how I would try to do it based on my training, but I´m not an oceanographer.
It seems to me the energy coming from below is critical because it´s coming from below, not necessarily because it´s that large (0.1 watts per m2 doesn´t sound like much until it´s applied to cold water sitting at 4000 meters). What makes me wonder is why don´t they bother to use it? It would seem to be a fairly simple exercise.
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by terastienstra
The point is that the $1Billion a day is spent on wind-and solar farms, which have NO effect on CO2 emissions. Electricity is less than primary energy use and on top of that the intermitency of wind- and solar energy makes causes the net fuel savings on the electricity grid to be zero for contributions of 10% and negative for higher contributions. The $1Billion a day are only good for “green” investors, supplying them with a state-guaranteed income, paid by the poor (mostly).
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by terastienstra
I omitted a figure, sorry: I should hav written that electricity is less than 10% of primary energy use
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Fernando Leanme
Oceanoker, a cartoon view of the process would tell us the Southern Ocean has a current flowing from West to East. The surface water is dragged by winds circling Antarctica, this means water below the surface tends to be dragged to the left (to the North) of the East West flow. If water below the surface tends to flow away from Antarctica then something has to replace it. This means there must be a deep water upwelling closer to the Antarctic coastline.
However, my intuition tells me the turnover caused by this process doesn´t send water down below 2000 meters (??). I bet it requires cold AND salty water to pump water into the ultradeep layers. Salinity has to play a role in the process (??).
Let me keep thinking about this….if salinity plays a role then how do we make salty water near the poles? We make lots of surface ice, I suppose. This means the seasonal sea ice extent and volume of first year ice have an influence on the amount of salty water which is left just underneath the ice as the ice forms.
Interestingly, this means the Arctic sea ice minimum being so low can lead to a stronger circulation if the amount of FIRST YEAR ICE is increasing(?). So is the amount of first year ice increasing? What are the near surface salinity trends in the Arctic and the Southern ocean?
I´m sort of thinking and writing, so please feel free to laugh.
This is purely speculative on my part. My guess is the transport caused by wind stress
↧
Comment on Open thread by Peter Lang
• What is the compliance cost of GHG emissions monitoring?
• What would the compliance cost become in the future as participation increases (As Part 1 explained, near full participation is essential for carbon pricing to succeed and be sustainable; full participation means all human caused sources of GHG emissions in all countries are measured and priced)?
• What would be the ultimate compliance cost of near full participation?
• What would be the real cost to society of emissions monitoring?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Jack
Climate response estimates from Lewis & Curry
↧
Comment on Open thread by Stephen Segrest
Stevepostrel dislikes CAGW types (and so do I) but saying catastrophic T&D failure will absolutely occur from renewables is perfectly OK.
Of course the biggest experiment going on in real time is Germany — where the German government is saying they are maintaining high reliability. I know very little of Germany, but reports are saying this high reliability is being largely being achieved by implementing urban micro-grids and smart grids.
Anybody have links to the cost of Germany maintaining System reliability?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
So most of the US decadal pattern was quite natural – and for the same reason Alaska and the Arctic.
Yet instead of understanding he blathers on about irrelevant nonsense. FOMBS is quite incorrigible.
Science quite clearly leads to an expectation of cooling for 20 to 40 years at least from 2002. But the oblivious twerps just babble on regardless.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Dick Hertz
Wondering if any Climate Etc. readers are following the latest in the saga formerly known as cold fusion? Is it possible? Any opinions?
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by Jim D
Geoff, there are satellites that have measured CO2 distributions and there are no holes. I think skeptics have the craziest ideas sometimes, but it is entertaining.
↧
Comment on Open thread by angech
David Appell (@davidappell) | October 8,
“Only *one* satellite data model shows this. The other (UAH) does not. Without a valid reason to prefer one over the other, choosing RSS only is biased and unscientific.”
Similarly only one pole shows warming the other [Antarctic ] does not
Without a valid reason to prefer one over the other, choosing AGW only is biased and unscientific.
ouch , David.
↧
↧
Comment on Evidence of deep ocean cooling? by RiHo08
Rob Ellison
It seems that photons move pretty quick, possibly creating regional differences and that an “equilibrium” state would not be achieved. Warming and cooling would occur locally and that when looking at the “atmosphere”, the complexity would seem insurmountable. Broad spectrum observations would seem to be very difficult to interpret. Pockets of one activity may be countered/amplified by immediate adjacent pockets. Assumptions that CO2 is a well mixed gas may not be true even on a regional basis. I recall that in auditoriums with large gatherings, local CO2 concentrations could be measured at 800 and sometimes 1200 PPMv. Submariners at times encounter 8000 PPMv. 19th Century CO2 measurements suggested rural /city/factory differences of CO2 were large but this was in an era of measurement technique differences so such reports have been by and large discounted.
It seems to me that broad strokes as GCM’s and possibly principles of physics requiring equilibrium to be true, miss the localize minutia that may be telling a very different story.
I say all this as I have spent a career following the CO2 & other respiratory molecules around the mammalian system, from before the first breath to aged expiration. Large scale assumptions have not been all that helpful.
I guess I am still clinging to the notion that CO2 is a trace gas and the trace gas radiative transfer model impact upon atmospheric warming should reflect its scarcity relative to water vapor.
Again, I am a slow learner and repetition may be helpful unless there is obstinance on my part, which there seems to be.
BTW I see why you gave me the first Ghil article as it was a prelude to #3. It helped. Thank you.
↧
Comment on Open thread by RACookPE1978
What strikes me about the “Arctic heat wave” sp often used as a “proof” of global warming is that the only plots presented for publication/propaganda/news release about Arctic temperatures are for “annual temperature averages from 60 north to 70 north latitude” …
Thus, although the DMI daily temperature plot for the sunlit summer months since 1959 shows 0.0 degrees warmer (just a small bit cooler actually!), the WINTER DMI daily graph is substantially higher (4 -5 degrees but with a very, very large deviation from week to week. The DMI SUMMER daily temperatures show NO increase at all, and a microscopic 60 year standard deviation of less than 2/10 of one degree. If the Arctic were getting hotter due to any kind of solar radiation or heat trapping, it is ONLY happening when the sun does not shine.
However, if one averages a long period of “hotter” winter days (when the sun is not shining) and a steady or static (not increasing) shorter period of summer days. the yearly average MUST go up. As needed.
Further, every plant, lichen, bush, shrub and tree in the world is growing taller, longer, more leafy, more widespread. Much, much darker. Is it any wonder than more “dark” areas due to increased vegetation and tree growth for longer periods of time decrease albedo and increase LAND arctic temperatures?
Everywhere on earth except Antarctica’s ice shelves and ice continental land. Which IS getting colder over time.
Well, all of Antarctica is getting colder except that one rocky and somewhat little bit bare peninsula!
↧
Comment on Open thread by mosomoso
Some years ago I was trying some Dongding oolong at a tea shop in Sydney. The lady serving asked me for my address. “You’re not going to believe this…”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
