In fact rather stronger than ‘do not agree':
Mark Brandon
@icey_mark
“… outright destructive dishonesty by @NickGBreeze hard for me to fathom”
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Paul Matthews
↧
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by aaron
I think dismissal of the methane bomb is important. If it is as likely as proposed by some researchers it should have also happened in the past. Where are these events in the paleo records?
↧
Comment on Open thread by D C
Far more radiative flux comes out of the first 10cm of the ocean surface in non-polar regions than is absorbed and converted to thermal energy therein, for the simple reason that over 95% of the solar radiation passes straight through that thin layer down into colder regions. There is however a net radiative flux from the ocean surface layer into the atmosphere, day and night, so that is not raising the surface temperature one little bit. The thin surface layer of the oceans does not act at all like a black or grey body because it has other energy input and output which is not by radiation. I can calculate its temperature accurately. Why can’t you do so?
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Rob Ellison
Surface ocean temperatures along the West Coast have a strong influence on nearby land weather, affecting air temperatures, and they are closely linked with daily fog coverage. These sea-surface temperatures are influenced by winds. When winds are strong, they can churn over the water, sucking cool water up from the ocean’s depths. They also shape ocean currents, which can shift water between polar and tropical climates. The winds can affect rates of evaporation, which cool an ocean in much the same way as sweating can cool the skin, affecting the amount of heat that moves between the sky and the ocean.
These ocean winds, in turn, are affected by variations in natural cycles that manifest in changes at the surface of the ocean and immediately over it. The most influential cycles are the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is a mighty cycle that typically takes 20 to 30 years to switch between its warm and cool phases.
While Mass was not involved with the new study, his prior research reached similar conclusions regarding a strong influence of Pacific Ocean cycles on changes in annual snowpack levels in the Cascade mountains. Other studies have linked these oceanic cycles with earlier snowmelts and warmer winters in California since the 1940s, and with a decline in California’s coastal fog since the early 20th century.
The new research built on those prior findings. “This was an effort to try and refine our understanding of the causes, or trends and variations, in the climate of the Eastern Pacific and West Coast states,” said Nate Mantua, now a NOAA fisheries scientist, the other author of the newly published paper. Mantua and Johnstone compared sea surface temperatures since 1900 with sea-level air pressure observations, which can be used as proxies for wind speed measurements.
The pair reported finding a “strong” correlation between sea-level pressures, or wind speeds, and sea-surface temperatures. They found evidence that changes in atmospheric pressure fields preceded changes in ocean temperatures by several months.
They wrote that their comparisons of sea-level pressures, sea-surface temperatures and land-based air temperatures provided “consistent evidence for strong” regulation of temperatures by changes in ocean cycles “from monthly to century time scales.” http://www.climatecentral.org/news/west-coast-warming-natural-variability-18067
Globally – the temperature increase from1944 to 1998 was 0.4 degrees C. It seems quite unlikely that all of that was anthropogenic. Or that a rise of 0.07 degrees C/decade is all that alarming.
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Faustino
Judith, signing off with an “x”, eh? Does this indicate a change in your relationship with your CE followers?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
This is astounding. Those two sentences of yours flatly contradict each other. The average kinetic energy ((EK1 + EK2 + … + EKn)/n) is reduced but the total kinetic energy (EK1 + EK2 … + EKn) is the same with no variation in the number of molecules. Really?
Really – there are fewer molecules per unit volume.
Yes. It is posited that some work dW will be performed as a result of some volume change under pressure. That’s the (dW = PdV) part of the derivation. What amount of volume change dV do we assume? That’s the amount of volume change governed by some pressure variation dP.
No it is the expansion that occurs a result of elastic decompression at some pressure P.
You really should try thinking it through rather than indulge in silly quibbles if you aspire to be taken seriously. Not by me anytime soon – but someone might. Baby atmospheric physics – btw – is worlds away form the real climate story.
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Steven Mosher
Mike Jonas
공자 앞에서 문자 쓴다
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
The thin surface layer of the oceans does not act at all like a black or grey body because it has other energy input and output which is not by radiation. I can calculate its temperature accurately. Why can’t you do so?
Oh for God’s sake Dougie. The ocean will equilibriate at a temperature where the gains – SW and IR – equal the losses – IR, conduction and evaporation. There is no equilibrium hence the oceans warm and cool.
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Steven Mosher
“Mosher why is “quantified” explanation the big divider here? ”
because if you dont have a quantified statement you are not saying anything interesting.
Example: the warming could have resulted from unicorn farts. Yes, it could have resulting from “natural varaibility” or “something the sun does we dont understand” or frog burps.
Without a quantified guess, quantified story, quantified theory, you have nothing but farts and burps.
시작이 반이다
↧
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Matthew R Marler
Steven Mosher: <i> a nail?
more settled science from skeptics.. published in a blog comment no less</i>
angech: <i> Arctic sea ice minima is a very tricky subject. I hope it keeps increasing as if it does it places a very large nail in climate sensitivity to CO2.</i>
Note the conditional: if.
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by mosomoso
Upernavik, well north of Arctic Circle, looks like the limit for Greenland. Really, how far north were they expected to go?
Inuit may have traded goods further north but 72+ degrees looks like the northern limit of settlement. Who knows what the Norse were doing erecting cairns and runestones that far north, but they did. Disko Island and other places within the Arctic Circle were frequented for hunting and fishing by the Viks, though one doubts there was any real estate boom in the area. There still isn’t. Interesting evidence of a Norse presence well north in the Canadian Arctic – but you can imagine how popular that research isn’t in the present academic climate.
I dare say Greenland settlement died for a complex of reasons, everything from exhaustion of wood and soil to plague and Basque pirates. Oddly, there’s one major and obvious reason we’re not supposed to mention any more.
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Matthew R Marler
popesclimatetheory: Read “1421” The Year China Discovered America, by Gavin Menzies
If that is the evidence, I’ll pass.
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Steven Mosher
Matthew
“I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that if the only quantitative model you have is wrong (or based on dubious or clearly counterfactual assumptions), then the fact that there are no adequate alternative quantitative models does not have any strong implications for guiding action.”
Given that you must act. Given that we are ALWAYS acting, always making decisions, the fact that a theory is wrong doesnt prevent you from using to to act.
doing nothing is also acting. and doing nothing because you aren’t sure makes the mistake of thinking you need knowledge to act. You dont.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by D C
You, Rob Ellison, still haven’t shown me your Stefan Boltzmann calculations as to what temperature a mean of 161W/m^2 of solar radiation reaching the surface but mostly passing through the thin surface layer will supposedly raise the temperature. If the whole of Earth’s surface were paved in asphalt (emissivity 0.88) the mean temperature would be about -35C – yes 35 degrees below freezing point. I will not accept that you can add radiative flux from the colder atmosphere and assume it will raise the temperature more than solar radiation does. The only radiation back and forth between the surface and the atmosphere has a cooling effect wherever the surface is warmer than the region of the atmosphere where any particular radiation from the surface is absorbed.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison wrote: “The expansion is the result of elastic decompression of the air inside the chamber and the reduction in temperature is the result of a reduced average kinetic energy. The same kinetic energy in a bigger volume.”
Pierre-Normand replied: “This is astounding. Those two sentences of yours flatly contradict each other. The average kinetic energy ((EK1 + EK2 + … + EKn)/n) is reduced but the total kinetic energy (EK1 + EK2 … + EKn) is the same with no variation in the number of molecules. Really?”
Rob Ellison rejoindered: “Really – there are fewer molecules per unit volume.”
Really? Per unit volume the total energy is the same? That’s really what you meant? That’s even more astounding. If there are *fewer* molecules per unit volume, and they have *reduced* average kinetic energy, then your claim that the total energy (per unit volume) is the same even more absurd than how I interpreted it (as referring to the whole enclosure).
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison: “No it is the expansion that occurs a result of elastic decompression at some pressure P.”
Merely saying that the decompression is elastic doesn’t tell us how much decompression occurs as a function of vertical displacement.
We are talking about the derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate. If we assume that the pressure is constant, then what is it that determines the amount of expansion dV that occurs? I provided my answer. It’s the change in ambient pressure that occurs while the parcel of air rises and expands adiabatically in the weighted atmospheric column (this provides the two equations that relate dP, dV and rho*g). How do *you* determine dV if pressure is constant and therefore dP = 0? If dP = 0 then you can’t make use of the equation (PdV = -VdP/gamma) that governs adiabatic expansion. If you do make use of it, then you get that W = PdV = 0, and therefore dV = 0.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
Really? Per unit volume the total energy is the same? That’s really what you meant? That’s even more astounding. If there are *fewer* molecules per unit volume, and they have *reduced* average kinetic energy, then your claim that the total energy (per unit volume) is the same even more absurd than how I interpreted it (as referring to the whole enclosure).
You have difficulties with the simplest concepts. As I have said – it comes from not seeing the jiggle jiggle.
The total energy in the expanded volume is the same but the average energy is reduced. Compress a gas and it warms. Decompress it and it cools.
And Steffen-Boltzmann is quite the wrong tool Dougie.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
“No it is the expansion that occurs a result of elastic decompression at some pressure P.”
Merely saying that the decompression is elastic doesn’t tell us how much decompression occurs as a function of vertical displacement.
dV = (m Cv dT)/-P
You could think this through for a change.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison wrote: ” You have difficulties with the simplest concepts. As I have said – it comes from not seeing the jiggle jiggle. The total energy in the expanded volume is the same but the average energy is reduced. Compress a gas and it warms. Decompress it and it cools.”
I must confess that I genuinely have much trouble with this concept. What “average energy” are you now talking about? Weren’t we talking about the average kinetic energy of the molecules? Are you still talking about a unit volume or the whole expanded enclosure? If you are talking about the whole enclosure, then when the average energy is reduced then so is the total energy of all the molecules, since this just is the average multiplied by the number of molecules. If we are talking about some constant unit volume, then the molecular population density drops as well as the average energy. So, the total energy within this unit volume drops even more!
So, what is this “total energy” that you are talking about, that you allege remains the same, if it can be neither the total for the enclosure nor the total per unit volume? Did you really think that through?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
“Compress a gas and it warms.[...]”
Yes, it warms because I produced work to compress it and this work translates to an *increase* both in average (per molecule ) and total energy within it.
“[...] Decompress it and it cools.”
Yes, it cools because some the kinetic energy of the molecules (both total and average) is given up as work as the previous process is reversed.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
