Mike Flynn, if you are asking why there are no thermals over open ocean, it s because of thermal inertia. Even under a hot sun, the open ocean may only warm by a degree, so there would be no big thermals, and the winds can remain light. You won’t see that happening on land.
Comment on Open thread by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Howard
Thanks for the link Rose. These are air concentrations, not snow/ice deposit concentrations. The effective black carbon levels (in air) are down ~50% since the early 90’s following the collapse of USSR. These data are only suggestive of albedo impacts. The good news is that the effects going forward with all of the new ice should be less.
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by phatboy
R Gates, are you sure that we ever did know what natural variability is?
↧
Comment on Open thread by schitzree
Congratulations, katatetorihanzo. You have successfully shown that the decades before the 1998 climate shift were cooler then the ones after it, a point nearly everyone (including myself) already knows. And if RSS went back further then the 70’s it would also show it’s climate shift down from the warmer years of the 30’s,40’s and 50′. And the trend would go back up again.
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by phatboy
So a small extra amount of energy flowing into the Arctic is multiplied into a large increase in energy – from where exactly?
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Mike Flynn
Jim D,
Thank you. No, I wasn’t asking why there are no thermals over open ocean. Actually, I was commenting on the fact that in the lead up to the Wet Season, it is not unusual to have rapid surface warming, elevated air temperatures, theoretically unstable atmospheric conditions, and yet no wind or cloud buildup, for hours in some cases – on land. The combination of high humidity and temperature, combined with lack of breeze or cloud, is probably the cause of what is referred to locally as Mango Madness.
People look forward to the Wet, more for relief from the oppressive conditions, rather than the expectation of torrential rain, even higher temperatures and humidity, combined with increased chances of cyclones, power failures, isolation due to rail and road flooding and washouts and so on.
The absolute stillness of the atmosphere, combined with the heat and humidity, not to mention the blazing tropical sun, gives one cause for thought – particularly if mad Warmists tell you it doesn’t happen.
Thanks anyway.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
‘Questioning assumptions doesn’t entitle you to assert mutually inconsistent claims. You claimed that under an adiabatic expansion process the average kinetic energy of the molecules is reduced but the total isn’t reduced because (as you alleged) it’s the same amount of energy spread out in a larger volume. But this explanation doesn’t work at all. If the average KE drops while the number of molecules is constant, then so does the total.’
You have said that about 20 times now – it seems such a simple idea. If there are 4 boxes with cupcakes in them. Now take the cupcakes out and put it them in six boxes – how much less is in each box and how much is there in total?
There is no piston – there are only molecules moving out under elastic compression. If we assume no radiative losses or gains – all of the kinetic energy is conserved in the larger area. In this adiabatic assumption – it is assumed that there is some work done by the pressure-volume relationship. But this is not exact by any means, not provable in any empirical sense, not susceptible to theoretical analysis and not a realistic energy dynamic in the atmosphere. It is a physical metaphor. The real process is molecular diffusion into progressively lower densities and molecular velocities – the pretend process is air in a box at a terminal height.
Your approach is profoundly naïve – you mistake approximate physics relations for exact reality and refuse to think about what the actual physical processes are. You insist that PdV is an exact description of what happens in nature – it simply and obviously isn’t. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is obviously not even close to the US standard atmosphere.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
Mike Flynn: “A common occurrence in the tropics, both on land and sea – blazing sun, high surface temperatures, no trace of breeze. Interesting.”
You are measuring the rate of convective heat transport with a lit cigarette. What are you measuring the vertical temperature gradient with?
↧
Comment on Open thread by brent
Greenpeace condemned by its original founder as ‘evil’ and being guilty of ‘losing its humanitarian roots
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison: “You have said that about 20 times now – it seems such a simple idea. If there are 4 boxes with cupcakes in them. Now take the cupcakes out and put it them in six boxes – how much less is in each box and how much is there in total?”
It’s *not* the number of molecules (number of cupcakes) that’s at issue. What is is that represents the average KE per molecule in your cupcakes analogy? Nothing. Hence the analogy is useless. I agree that the number of molecules (number of cupcakes) doesn’t change. It’s the average and total amount of *kinetic energy* (amount of frosty topping) that’s at issue. If the average KE of the molecules drops (the average amount of frosty topping) is *reduced*, as you acknowledge average KE is, then merely re-arranging the cupcakes into more boxes with not make the reduced amount of frosty topping add up to the same total as before. That’s because the total amount of frosty topping just is the average amount of frosty topping per cupcake multiplied by the total number of cupcakes. Since the number of cupcakes doesn’t vary, when the average amount of topping drops, so does the total. That an issue with the conservation of energy (topping).
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
cupcakes = energy – how is that not obvious when we are talking total and average energy?
This has taken on a surreal dimension that I can’t quite cope with. Look the cupcakes are the energies – we will call them Joule cakes – not the damn frosting. There are fewer cupcakes per box and the same number of cupcakes in total. Really – can’t you understand anything. Frosting is just the icing on the cake for God’s sake. .
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
“There is no piston – there are only molecules moving out under elastic compression. If we assume no radiative losses or gains – all of the kinetic energy is conserved in the larger area. In this adiabatic assumption – it is assumed that there is some work done by the pressure-volume relationship. But this is not exact by any means, not provable in any empirical sense, not susceptible to theoretical analysis and not a realistic energy dynamic in the atmosphere. It is a physical metaphor. The real process is molecular diffusion into progressively lower densities and molecular velocities – the pretend process is air in a box at a terminal height.”
Well, I think that *my* approximation of the internal energy lost when a gas adiabatically expands, as dW = PdV, is an infinitely better approximation for the real atmospheric process than your own bizarre approximation, free expansion, where the variation in internal energy is *zero*. Your approximation better represents Joule’s experiment where the gas is allowed to expand into a previously evacuated cavity through an aperture opened up in the original container, and without doing any external work while doing so.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison: “cupcakes = energy – how is that not obvious when we are talking total and average energy?”
No. We are talking about total energy and average energy *per* *molecule*. Since now there is nothing in your analogy that represents single molecules, you are simply asserting that the energy is spread out while remaining the same. But I was precisely questioning the consistency of this assertion with the claim that the average energy *per* *molecule* is reduced.
Look, try it out with just 3 molecules M1, M2 and M3. Each molecule has some kinetic energy KE1, KE2 and KE3. So the average is (KE1+KE2+KE3)/3 and the total energy is (KE1+KE2+KE3). Since there are three molecules from start to finish, the total energy will *always* be 3 times the average. So, how can the total remain the same while the average varies? Moving the molecules further apart will change the volumetric density of the energy, but will have no effect on the total. The total still is KE1+KE2+KE3. That it is spread out in a larger volume is neither here nor there.
↧
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by tonyb
Tom
We talk about co2 constantly but very rarely about black carbon so it would ne nice if Mosh could have got away from his fixation on the former and contributed more on the latter. Its an interesting subject that doesn’t get explored enough.
As I say its low hanging fruit whereas co2 is way up there at the top of a swaying tree and difficult to tackle, even if we can identify that its a fruit worth pickling.
tonyb
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Rob Ellison
Climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain. It makes for an unpredictable system and surprises are more likely than guaranteed warming.
‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
It is not clear that the world is warming post the 1998/2001 climate shift – that involved a climatically significant step change in albedo as a response to abrupt changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation.
‘Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.’
I presume that a wild climate comes with a spectrum of risk – not remotely all attributable to CO2 – something like a log-Pearson distribution. Log-Pearsons are used for hydrological distributions. Frequent low impacts events and a long tail of low probability high impact events. Not by any means solely as a result of CO2 changes.
Presuming that we need to respond on this basis of risk management – there are certain minimum conditions to be met. One of these – to my mind – is maximum economic growth this century at least. This is not negotiable. It is a fundamental value – but available responses are broad and flexible.
Building resilience to climate variability that will happen regardless remains a central objective of rational policy. Economic development is the core of building long term resilience. Fast mitigation is not merely possible with reductions in population pressures and emissions of black carbon, tropospheric ozone, methane, CFC’s and nitrous oxide – but are outcomes of health, education and economic development strategies. We may also reduce carbon emissions by building soil fertility on agricultural lands and conserving and restoring ecosystems. There are practical and pragmatic approaches that provide real no regrets policy options.
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by climatereason
Matthew
In Your 2.18 you listed some major threats.
I would add in malicious electronic hacking at individual and state level which if directed at infrastructure such as electricity would bring us down in days as money, energy, food etc all became tied up in an electronic tangle.
In this context I would add in a Carrington event the last of which affected us peripherally as we were only at the start of the electronic age.
According to Leif, it is certain that we will have another and it would be devastating. If so should we be putting as many resources into combatting it as we do fighting co2? We do seem to have become fixated on the latter when there are far more things we need to worry about including those in your excellent list.
tonyb
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Rob Ellison
The temperature rise from 1944 to 1998 was 0.4 degrees C. It is unlikely in the extreme that this was all anthropogenic – given the millennial peak in both solar activity and El Nino activity. The rate of rise was 0.07 degrees C/decade. Not at all alarming even if it were all anthropogenic.
Most rise prior to 1944 was not anthropogenic – despite Pratt’s naive trendology.
↧
↧
Comment on Words of wisdom from Charles Lyell by rmdobservations
Johanna, The dilemma is that scienitists like Hansen see global warming as an immediate problem and needs to be fixed. I feel that he is too close to the problem. It is for cooler heads to understand what he is saying and try to fit it into policy.
I find your analogy interesting. But does it not imply that there should be something done immediately about global warming, before we understand why it is happening? No one can predict the effects that abuse can have on a child until the child is an adult.
I personally see more hope in local governments dealing with the uncertain effects of changing climate on their own infrastructure than any grand scheme proposed from the UN or US Federal level. The Global Climate models cannot say anything about when it will rain so hard that the sewers will flood. Or when the rains stop coming. But this is what a city needs to be prepared for.
Rose
p.s. I cannot find any post written by Geoff Sherringham. Is it in another part of the blog?
↧
Comment on New presentations on sea ice by Pepe
I know Miskolczi is not very well considered here, but for me it was a revelation when I read and began to understand what optical depth was, and that his model of radiative transfer, or similars, were important to understand an one dimensional atmosphere. I made myself a “mental experiment” imagining a “atmosphere tube” with water in one extreme -down-, an atmosphere gravitationally attached down, and a radiation source in the other extreme, up, and how it would evolve… to a steady state, evaporating part of the ocean to the atmosphere until the adequate optical depth were reached. Attending to Miskolczi and others, that steady state wouldn’t change too much if we add some CO2 to that atmosphere. In some way, that’s the engine where all the other variations must be hanged (specially variations in albedo because of clouds -maybe connected with solar cycles as other authors are trying to prove-, variations in albedo because of sea ice extention, linked with the oceanic currents -as in the “stadium wave” that was presented by Curry and others, etc., variations in heat exchange between atmosphere and oceans, and so on. All this remembers me (I know it’s not very original) those “perpetual motion” toys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IKNgcwnxFc
I know I’m not original, but just wanted to write my reflexions about how I think It will evolve the knowledge about climate change.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
Cupcakes are conserved – the 1st law of cupcakes. The second law – suggests that you can’t have your cupcake and eat it. The third law says that cupcakes are not a magic pudding.
All the molecules – lots and lots of them – are the sprinkles on the top of the icing. Now say you have 4 friends – and 2 that you don’t like but had to invite because your mum said so. You can share the cakes with 4 people – and each has so many kilojoules – or you can share them with 6 and each has less kilojoules.
Let’s go back to the gravitational potential energy at an infinite distance from Earth – that was even funnier.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
