Son of Mulder.
I've discovered another link that may be of interest with regard to MEP.
http://ams.allenpress.com/arch...20-0442-10-3-441.pdf
Hope this helps.
Best regards, suricat.
interjection - yay, the impiracle falsification thread is back!
Beer Belle. Hi there! 
Some of us are here, but I think I upset Lucibee.
If anyone needs a soft landing into entropy I found this link on Tamino's web site.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...0/entropy/#more-1522
I also found it amusing.
Best regards, suricat.
Some of us are here, but I think I upset Lucibee.
If anyone needs a soft landing into entropy I found this link on Tamino's web site.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...0/entropy/#more-1522
I also found it amusing.
Best regards, suricat.
Falsification of greenhouse effect
I hope you guys realise that we do actually have scientists working on this, and that you don't need to become an expert in this field to unravel it!
I saw The Age of Stupid this weekend, and I have to say that although it was OK, I don't recommend that you see it if you are a skeptic, coz you'll probably pick as many holes as I did!
However, it did strike me that we have a sense of unreality about the whole thing - indeed about our future in general. We are incapable of imagining what will happen to us until it happens, and although our ability to react to situations in the past has saved us, I don't think it necessarily can do so all the time.
If we wait until 2015 to "settle the science", it will be too late. And what's the betting that someone will suggest that maybe we should wait until 2025... and 2035.... and 2045.... just to make sure?
We have enough evidence to do something now. We have never been so lucky in the past. To ignore that in favour of "waiting to see what happens" is pure stupidity in relation to the risks involved.
Carry on trying to disprove basic laws of physics if you like, but I suggest that your time might be better spent doing something else!
I hope you guys realise that we do actually have scientists working on this, and that you don't need to become an expert in this field to unravel it!
I saw The Age of Stupid this weekend, and I have to say that although it was OK, I don't recommend that you see it if you are a skeptic, coz you'll probably pick as many holes as I did!
However, it did strike me that we have a sense of unreality about the whole thing - indeed about our future in general. We are incapable of imagining what will happen to us until it happens, and although our ability to react to situations in the past has saved us, I don't think it necessarily can do so all the time.
If we wait until 2015 to "settle the science", it will be too late. And what's the betting that someone will suggest that maybe we should wait until 2025... and 2035.... and 2045.... just to make sure?
We have enough evidence to do something now. We have never been so lucky in the past. To ignore that in favour of "waiting to see what happens" is pure stupidity in relation to the risks involved.
Carry on trying to disprove basic laws of physics if you like, but I suggest that your time might be better spent doing something else!
Lucibee.
Welcome back Luci. I'm glad you have returned and I think your retreat from this forum was due to a stupid misunderstanding, or bad post, on my part.
I concur, but the scientists don't arrive at a conclusion that I (as an engineer) can understand as a true outcome from the events that have transpired. A radiative Earth model doesn't explain it all!
Why? And "what"?
I was of the understanding that this thread is a continuation of the 'Is there an empirical falsification of anthropogenic CO2' thread from C4 (though to be fair, this should be defined by SoM as it's his thread).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I hope you guys realise that we do actually have scientists working on this, and that you don't need to become an expert in this field to unravel it!
Welcome back Luci. I'm glad you have returned and I think your retreat from this forum was due to a stupid misunderstanding, or bad post, on my part.
I concur, but the scientists don't arrive at a conclusion that I (as an engineer) can understand as a true outcome from the events that have transpired. A radiative Earth model doesn't explain it all!
quote:
Carry on trying to disprove basic laws of physics if you like, but I suggest that your time might be better spent doing something else!
Why? And "what"?
I was of the understanding that this thread is a continuation of the 'Is there an empirical falsification of anthropogenic CO2' thread from C4 (though to be fair, this should be defined by SoM as it's his thread).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:I concur, but the scientists don't arrive at a conclusion that I (as an engineer) can understand as a true outcome from the events that have transpired. A radiative Earth model doesn't explain it all!
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it therefore has to be wrong!
No, a radiative Earth model doesn't explain it all, as shown by the comments on the G&T paper. Earth systems models are necessarily very complicated, but that does not preclude the use of simpler analogous models to explain the main principles to lay persons.
Suricat
Indeed that was precisely my intention....in the absence of M Batchelor who owned the original thread.
The emphasis being on empirical because how else could it be falsified? And also a reminder that by anthropic global warming we are talking about 'dangerous warming'.
And by dangerous I mean that the world will be in a significantly worse state than without any warming.
quote:I was of the understanding that this thread is a continuation of the 'Is there an empirical falsification of anthropogenic CO2' thread from C4 (though to be fair, this should be defined by SoM as it's his thread).
Indeed that was precisely my intention....in the absence of M Batchelor who owned the original thread.
The emphasis being on empirical because how else could it be falsified? And also a reminder that by anthropic global warming we are talking about 'dangerous warming'.
And by dangerous I mean that the world will be in a significantly worse state than without any warming.
Lucibee.
This is a "misquote" Luci because I do have an understanding of it, but the outcome isn't what was stated! A solely radiative Earth model can't model all the entropy/enthalpy processes that are involved. There aren't enough degrees of freedom covered by radiation alone!
Aye, the explanation to "the masses"! All I can say on this is "shut the f*** *p until you have a 100% analogy" for "the masses"!!! I think an introduction into the real world of 'educated analysis' is better than 'indoctrination'.
Sorry SoM, this is a bit OT. However, I think it's also indicative of where the truth is.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it therefore has to be wrong!
This is a "misquote" Luci because I do have an understanding of it, but the outcome isn't what was stated! A solely radiative Earth model can't model all the entropy/enthalpy processes that are involved. There aren't enough degrees of freedom covered by radiation alone!
quote:
No, a radiative Earth model doesn't explain it all, as shown by the comments on the G&T paper. Earth systems models are necessarily very complicated, but that does not preclude the use of simpler analogous models to explain the main principles to lay persons.
Aye, the explanation to "the masses"! All I can say on this is "shut the f*** *p until you have a 100% analogy" for "the masses"!!! I think an introduction into the real world of 'educated analysis' is better than 'indoctrination'.
Sorry SoM, this is a bit OT. However, I think it's also indicative of where the truth is.
Best regards, suricat.
Lucibee.
Just in case you think that the rancour in my last post was aimed at you personally, it wasn't. I enjoy our little talks.
It was aimed squarely at the mono-dimensional radiative models that mislead our policy makers.
Best regards, suricat.
Just in case you think that the rancour in my last post was aimed at you personally, it wasn't. I enjoy our little talks.
It was aimed squarely at the mono-dimensional radiative models that mislead our policy makers.
Best regards, suricat.
Here's a video I've found of Lord Monckton giving a presentation in the US. I find it quite impressive. Some very interesting facts and observations....some of them empirical. It's about 90 mins but well worth it.
Son of Mulder.
First time I've seen Lord Monckton in action. He certainly presents well and takes a lot of the faff out of the science. Although this is a recent presentation you'll find that our sun has recently broken radio silence since the piece was recorded. See;
http://sidc.oma.be/
Though, it's still quiet.
I must admit that I didn't realise just how much the IPCC is influencing the science. I knew it was to a degree from all the grumbles around the Internet, but not to the suggested degree if Monckton is correct. I'm also surprised that he didn't mention atmospheric black carbon and dust, though to do so would have added to the length of the presentation.
Nice one SoM. Especially as I've drawn very similar conclusions myself.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Here's a video I've found of Lord Monckton giving a presentation in the US.
First time I've seen Lord Monckton in action. He certainly presents well and takes a lot of the faff out of the science. Although this is a recent presentation you'll find that our sun has recently broken radio silence since the piece was recorded. See;
http://sidc.oma.be/
Though, it's still quiet.
I must admit that I didn't realise just how much the IPCC is influencing the science. I knew it was to a degree from all the grumbles around the Internet, but not to the suggested degree if Monckton is correct. I'm also surprised that he didn't mention atmospheric black carbon and dust, though to do so would have added to the length of the presentation.
Nice one SoM. Especially as I've drawn very similar conclusions myself.
Best regards, suricat.
Mufcdiver
This was one of the chestnuts that I debated hard with Steve_M. His position was that Radiosonde measurements of the equatorial troposphere were unreliable and that we should rely on converting windspeeds to temperature. Shame we've lost the C4 archive. Also presence of a hotspot would be consistent with the models that predict AGW but absence at best implies that the models are wrong but AGW may still be right.
quote:Anyone seen the greenhouse signature that proves CO2 induced AGW?
This was one of the chestnuts that I debated hard with Steve_M. His position was that Radiosonde measurements of the equatorial troposphere were unreliable and that we should rely on converting windspeeds to temperature. Shame we've lost the C4 archive. Also presence of a hotspot would be consistent with the models that predict AGW but absence at best implies that the models are wrong but AGW may still be right.
mufcdiver.
This expectation has always baffled me muf as CO2 interacts with IR. Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) begins to see it's extinction into outer space at about 3-5 kilometres altitude, dependant on the latitude of occupation (if I remember what Steve_M said correctly). Thus, OLR at 8 kilometres over the equator is expected to be within the start of the window of OLR radiation into space. If the 8 kilometres region is beginning to cool, then the regions above must be cooling at a greater rate. How a greater temperature can be observed in the expected tropospheric region of the hot spot is beyond my understanding. But an increase in the altitude of the tropopause isn't (latent transport and evaporative exchanger principle)! Perhaps increased convection winds can show this better, or total water plus SH? I doubt it, they are under too much influence from insolation.
However, an increase of CO2 propensity in the stratosphere would elevate temperature due to OLR refraction, giving greatest temperature increase at the low stratospheric altitudes and permitting greater temperatures within the region where the hot spot is expected. There is a problem with this!
CO2 is easily diffused into water condensate and is washed out of the tropospheric atmosphere by the precipitation phase of the atmospheric hydrological cycle. This offers a weak boundary that keeps atmospheric CO2 within the troposphere and reduces its population of the above stratosphere (diffusion pump principle).
At a guess, I'd say that this hot spot won't be observed until the CO2 diffusion pump pressure is breached (would this be a "tipping point"?).
Oh, those models!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Where is the hot spot?
This expectation has always baffled me muf as CO2 interacts with IR. Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) begins to see it's extinction into outer space at about 3-5 kilometres altitude, dependant on the latitude of occupation (if I remember what Steve_M said correctly). Thus, OLR at 8 kilometres over the equator is expected to be within the start of the window of OLR radiation into space. If the 8 kilometres region is beginning to cool, then the regions above must be cooling at a greater rate. How a greater temperature can be observed in the expected tropospheric region of the hot spot is beyond my understanding. But an increase in the altitude of the tropopause isn't (latent transport and evaporative exchanger principle)! Perhaps increased convection winds can show this better, or total water plus SH? I doubt it, they are under too much influence from insolation.
However, an increase of CO2 propensity in the stratosphere would elevate temperature due to OLR refraction, giving greatest temperature increase at the low stratospheric altitudes and permitting greater temperatures within the region where the hot spot is expected. There is a problem with this!
CO2 is easily diffused into water condensate and is washed out of the tropospheric atmosphere by the precipitation phase of the atmospheric hydrological cycle. This offers a weak boundary that keeps atmospheric CO2 within the troposphere and reduces its population of the above stratosphere (diffusion pump principle).
At a guess, I'd say that this hot spot won't be observed until the CO2 diffusion pump pressure is breached (would this be a "tipping point"?).
Oh, those models!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Mufcdiverquote:Anyone seen the greenhouse signature that proves CO2 induced AGW?
This was one of the chestnuts that I debated hard with Steve_M. His position was that Radiosonde measurements of the equatorial troposphere were unreliable and that we should rely on converting windspeeds to temperature. Shame we've lost the C4 archive. Also presence of a hotspot would be consistent with the models that predict AGW but absence at best implies that the models are wrong but AGW may still be right.
I remember[vaguely] the thread of the conversation but can't remember if you resolved whether 'if the models could be wrong, has CO2 induced AGW anything else left to stand on'?
I mean 'Radiosonde are good for one measurement that suits us, but not good for another' sounds like cherry picking to me!
quote:Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.quote:
Where is the hot spot?
This expectation has always baffled me muf as CO2 interacts with IR. Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) begins to see it's extinction into outer space at about 3-5 kilometres altitude, dependant on the latitude of occupation (if I remember what Steve_M said correctly). Thus, OLR at 8 kilometres over the equator is expected to be within the start of the window of OLR radiation into space. If the 8 kilometres region is beginning to cool, then the regions above must be cooling at a greater rate. How a greater temperature can be observed in the expected tropospheric region of the hot spot is beyond my understanding. But an increase in the altitude of the tropopause isn't (latent transport and evaporative exchanger principle)! Perhaps increased convection winds can show this better, or total water plus SH? I doubt it, they are under too much influence from insolation.
However, an increase of CO2 propensity in the stratosphere would elevate temperature due to OLR refraction, giving greatest temperature increase at the low stratospheric altitudes and permitting greater temperatures within the region where the hot spot is expected. There is a problem with this!
CO2 is easily diffused into water condensate and is washed out of the tropospheric atmosphere by the precipitation phase of the atmospheric hydrological cycle. This offers a weak boundary that keeps atmospheric CO2 within the troposphere and reduces its population of the above stratosphere (diffusion pump principle).
At a guess, I'd say that this hot spot won't be observed until the CO2 diffusion pump pressure is breached (would this be a "tipping point"?).
Oh, those models!
Best regards, suricat.
As I understand it suricat the hotspot is an interaction between WV and IR which starts at the surface which is instigated by the two bands of CO2 situated in the tropics! The IPCC showed that it should be there, maybe we should ask them
mufcdiver.
I've been referred to three CO2 bands in the past, but only one has a relevant energy level for radiative power. If there is no latent transport then this +ive radiative forcing may have some impact. Otherwise, latent transport overwhelms this.
You want the bouncers to wear pink??? You tell 'em!!!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
As I understand it suricat the hotspot is an interaction between WV and IR which starts at the surface which is instigated by the two bands of CO2 situated in the tropics!
I've been referred to three CO2 bands in the past, but only one has a relevant energy level for radiative power. If there is no latent transport then this +ive radiative forcing may have some impact. Otherwise, latent transport overwhelms this.
quote:
The IPCC showed that it should be there, maybe we should ask them
You want the bouncers to wear pink??? You tell 'em!!!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.quote:
As I understand it suricat the hotspot is an interaction between WV and IR which starts at the surface which is instigated by the two bands of CO2 situated in the tropics!
I've been referred to three CO2 bands in the past, but only one has a relevant energy level for radiative power. If there is no latent transport then this +ive radiative forcing may have some impact. Otherwise, latent transport overwhelms this.quote:
The IPCC showed that it should be there, maybe we should ask them
You want the bouncers to wear pink??? You tell 'em!!!
Best regards, suricat.
I'll have to have a look around for this, its late so I'll post on Hey
in the interim cos this may need some work Muf
mufcdiver.
I need time to digest this muf, but don't forget that energy per se isn't always only represented by temperature and there may be some odd inclusions with temperature in this .pdf (e.g. entropy). Though at first glance this seems tied to temperature in the graphs!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
This is what I got PDF
I need time to digest this muf, but don't forget that energy per se isn't always only represented by temperature and there may be some odd inclusions with temperature in this .pdf (e.g. entropy). Though at first glance this seems tied to temperature in the graphs!
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
Thanks for this comment paper muf. Now I see how the IPCC sees 'water vapour (WV) feedback' as the mediator for this "hot-spot". This has always befuddled me, as I can only see WV's actions as a 'negative forcing'!
The Radiative Case For WV:
WV is the most abundant poly-atomic molecule (more than two atoms) in Earth's atmosphere and at an average approximate percentage of 1% of the total atmospheric gas mixture pretty well saturates the many radiative 'windows' of the spectra that it is associated with. Thus, a doubling of WV to 2% of the total atmospheric gas mix would have 'negligible radiative effect' to the already saturated "radiative 'windows' of the spectra that it is associated with". There can not be any 'discernible' "positive radiative feedback" caused by a doubling of WV. However, any 'large reduction' of WV in the current average atmospheric gas mix may well lead to a 'strong negative radiative feedback'!
The Latency Case For WV:
WV is a lighter than air gas with a large latent heat of phase change between a liquid (water) and gas (WV) and the compound is found at most of Earth's atmospheric temperatures, as it fairly easily "sublimates" from its solid phase (ice). Though in the upper stratosphere, and above, becomes the product of its component atoms (hydrogen (possibly in monatomic form) and monatomic-ozone, with compound variations between the component atoms and other inclusions). However, the "lighter than air" property of WV ensures its short life span of about 9 days in the troposphere, when its exclusion is expedited by precipitation to the surface. Thus, no lasting effect is forced upon climate, but precipitated WV is continually replaced by surface evapotranspiration ensuring an unending supply of WV to the atmosphere relative to the surface insolation of the time! Thus, a 'running WV continuum' is established for atmospheric WV content! Now, WV has a high value of latent heat of phase change. Thus, precipitation levels indicate the energy released to a region of the troposphere that is open to radiate to space, but more to this, the diurnal effect of WV both absorbs energy when H2O presents in liquid phase at sunrise, and emits from WV phase after about 4 PM local, thus, is a buffer to temperature change in Earth's atmosphere. H2O is absolutely a negative forcing against temperature change!
Did you want the H2O case, or was it CO2? Did I mention that CO2 is "trapped" in the troposphere by H2O?
PS. If this doesn't make sense I'll blame Mum! She's had a bad evening.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
This is what I got PDF
Thanks for this comment paper muf. Now I see how the IPCC sees 'water vapour (WV) feedback' as the mediator for this "hot-spot". This has always befuddled me, as I can only see WV's actions as a 'negative forcing'!
The Radiative Case For WV:
WV is the most abundant poly-atomic molecule (more than two atoms) in Earth's atmosphere and at an average approximate percentage of 1% of the total atmospheric gas mixture pretty well saturates the many radiative 'windows' of the spectra that it is associated with. Thus, a doubling of WV to 2% of the total atmospheric gas mix would have 'negligible radiative effect' to the already saturated "radiative 'windows' of the spectra that it is associated with". There can not be any 'discernible' "positive radiative feedback" caused by a doubling of WV. However, any 'large reduction' of WV in the current average atmospheric gas mix may well lead to a 'strong negative radiative feedback'!
The Latency Case For WV:
WV is a lighter than air gas with a large latent heat of phase change between a liquid (water) and gas (WV) and the compound is found at most of Earth's atmospheric temperatures, as it fairly easily "sublimates" from its solid phase (ice). Though in the upper stratosphere, and above, becomes the product of its component atoms (hydrogen (possibly in monatomic form) and monatomic-ozone, with compound variations between the component atoms and other inclusions). However, the "lighter than air" property of WV ensures its short life span of about 9 days in the troposphere, when its exclusion is expedited by precipitation to the surface. Thus, no lasting effect is forced upon climate, but precipitated WV is continually replaced by surface evapotranspiration ensuring an unending supply of WV to the atmosphere relative to the surface insolation of the time! Thus, a 'running WV continuum' is established for atmospheric WV content! Now, WV has a high value of latent heat of phase change. Thus, precipitation levels indicate the energy released to a region of the troposphere that is open to radiate to space, but more to this, the diurnal effect of WV both absorbs energy when H2O presents in liquid phase at sunrise, and emits from WV phase after about 4 PM local, thus, is a buffer to temperature change in Earth's atmosphere. H2O is absolutely a negative forcing against temperature change!
Did you want the H2O case, or was it CO2? Did I mention that CO2 is "trapped" in the troposphere by H2O?
PS. If this doesn't make sense I'll blame Mum! She's had a bad evening.
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
It's late, I'm alone and I've realise that there are some things that I've left out of my last post.
My post
Should read "H2O is absolutely a negative forcing against temperature change and any increasing temperature change because of the 'relative humidity' (RH) factor!".
The RH effect improves the latency factor with negligible forcing to the radiative factor.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
This is what I got PDF
It's late, I'm alone and I've realise that there are some things that I've left out of my last post.
My post
quote:
H2O is absolutely a negative forcing against temperature change!
Should read "H2O is absolutely a negative forcing against temperature change and any increasing temperature change because of the 'relative humidity' (RH) factor!".
The RH effect improves the latency factor with negligible forcing to the radiative factor.
Best regards, suricat.
Son of Mulder.
I was linked to this from Jennifer's blog.
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/...by-william-dipuccio/
Do you think this would have settled the discussion between you and Steve_M on the old C4 site?
Best regards, suricat.
I was linked to this from Jennifer's blog.
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/...by-william-dipuccio/
Do you think this would have settled the discussion between you and Steve_M on the old C4 site?
Best regards, suricat.
Excellent find suricat; well worth the read!
Suricat
You've not been paying attention ... see my post in this thread Posted 05 May 2009 10:23 PM.
It certainly would have supported my case against Steve but he'd have claimed it is an unacceptable measurement for some reason... we need Steve_M for that.
quote:I was linked to this from Jennifer's blog.
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/...by-william-dipuccio/
Do you think this would have settled the discussion between you and Steve_M on the old C4 site?
You've not been paying attention ... see my post in this thread Posted 05 May 2009 10:23 PM.
It certainly would have supported my case against Steve but he'd have claimed it is an unacceptable measurement for some reason... we need Steve_M for that.
Son of Mulder.
I am! It wasn't discussed. The link on Jennifer's site just reminded me.
Yes, I think he came up with software problems, but did admit that he didn't know where the heat had gone. Do you know if they've patched ARGOS in retrospect yet?
http://noaasis.noaa.gov/ARGOS/
The last link in "What's Hot" tells of ARGOS 3. Much faster up-link with data verification checksum, downlink for 2 way communication with sensor unit reprogramming option and smaller sensor units (all with backwards compatibility for ARGOS 2 & ARGOS 1).
I found a good reference site for mixed data too;
http://www.climate4you.com/
It also links to many sources.
I think one of the main things to keep in mind with ocean heat is to remember that a volume of ocean that becomes mixed to twice the expected depth, shows a temperature that is only the average between the original two depth averages, but no heat is lost! Is this an ocean current thing.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
You've not been paying attention ... see my post in this thread Posted 05 May 2009 10:23 PM.
I am! It wasn't discussed. The link on Jennifer's site just reminded me.
quote:
It certainly would have supported my case against Steve but he'd have claimed it is an unacceptable measurement for some reason... we need Steve_M for that.
Yes, I think he came up with software problems, but did admit that he didn't know where the heat had gone. Do you know if they've patched ARGOS in retrospect yet?
http://noaasis.noaa.gov/ARGOS/
The last link in "What's Hot" tells of ARGOS 3. Much faster up-link with data verification checksum, downlink for 2 way communication with sensor unit reprogramming option and smaller sensor units (all with backwards compatibility for ARGOS 2 & ARGOS 1).
I found a good reference site for mixed data too;
http://www.climate4you.com/
It also links to many sources.
I think one of the main things to keep in mind with ocean heat is to remember that a volume of ocean that becomes mixed to twice the expected depth, shows a temperature that is only the average between the original two depth averages, but no heat is lost! Is this an ocean current thing.
Best regards, suricat.
Suricat
I got he impression that the analysis is after the problems were fixed see the first of the 192 posts here
This is dismissed in in the Deep Ocean Heat section here Hansen and Schmidt hoist by their own petard.
quote:Do you know if they've patched ARGOS in retrospect yet?
I got he impression that the analysis is after the problems were fixed see the first of the 192 posts here
quote:I think one of the main things to keep in mind with ocean heat is to remember that a volume of ocean that becomes mixed to twice the expected depth, shows a temperature that is only the average between the original two depth averages, but no heat is lost! Is this an ocean current thing.
This is dismissed in in the Deep Ocean Heat section here Hansen and Schmidt hoist by their own petard.
Son of Mulder.
Quite plausible and I can only concur with the first post of 192. Though some of this effect may be due to weak solar influence.
I'm not so confident of that. Especially when the Thermohaline Circulation is being called into question;
http://theresilientearth.com/?...or-belt-model-broken
Though I think MOC is safe for now. Anyway, I don't like straight line graphs. They just look so 'modelled'.
Do you remember our long, drawn out, discussion on the origin of climate cells, where we agreed to disagree? I think the climate fraternity are beginning to realise the importance of Earth rotation and the "turbine effect" that I spoke of. Earth is still 'spinning down' from its encounter with Thea and this forces our Moon into a higher orbit, thanks to the water on Earth's surface. It's also slowing Earth's rotation, we've even added a second to our clocks last New Years Eve because of it (though this is only a tele-connected event).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I got he impression that the analysis is after the problems were fixed
Quite plausible and I can only concur with the first post of 192. Though some of this effect may be due to weak solar influence.
quote:
This is dismissed in in the Deep Ocean Heat section here
I'm not so confident of that. Especially when the Thermohaline Circulation is being called into question;
http://theresilientearth.com/?...or-belt-model-broken
Though I think MOC is safe for now. Anyway, I don't like straight line graphs. They just look so 'modelled'.
Do you remember our long, drawn out, discussion on the origin of climate cells, where we agreed to disagree? I think the climate fraternity are beginning to realise the importance of Earth rotation and the "turbine effect" that I spoke of. Earth is still 'spinning down' from its encounter with Thea and this forces our Moon into a higher orbit, thanks to the water on Earth's surface. It's also slowing Earth's rotation, we've even added a second to our clocks last New Years Eve because of it (though this is only a tele-connected event).
Best regards, suricat.
Suricat/Mufc, I think you'll find this interesting. It's an easy to follow explaination of Ferenc Miskolczi's theory.
mufcdiver.
Your link is to a presentation/explanation by MiklÃģs ZÃĄgoni on Ferenc Miskolczi's theory, who's theory and papers have been discussed to death in the Climate Audit forum on the "Miscolczi" thread there.
http://www.climateaudit.org/ph...7d24c2ce3a9e1f73d59c
(28 pages).
The theory also featured on the Jennifer Marohasy blog recently.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...se-effect/#more-5058
Ah, following this visit I see there is a new entry that includes Miskolczi. Jen seems to like this subject!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-the-seas/#more-5251
You may need to move to the top of the page from these links as they copy the "read more" URL on the main blog.
Steve_M had a problem with equation (7) on Miskolczi's main paper, but this 2:1 ratio (2/3) has since been shown by other means and in other papers. It seems to work!
The most beautiful thing about Miskolczi theory for me is that it underpins the "atmospheric window" principle that we engineers like to use. More than this, it's detailed as "radiative theory". Could this be a "bridge" between disciplines!
From my last link to Jennifer's blog, ask yourself! Does Gaia provide a stable environment for Darwinian development, or dose Darwinian development provide stability to Gaia?
Personally, I don't think Darwinian development is possible without given stable parameters for it to develop into. Surely this must make chemistry the priority before biology can gain a foothold (I've avoided Darwin stuff before now as I'm crap on biology)?
Best regards, suricat.
Your link is to a presentation/explanation by MiklÃģs ZÃĄgoni on Ferenc Miskolczi's theory, who's theory and papers have been discussed to death in the Climate Audit forum on the "Miscolczi" thread there.
http://www.climateaudit.org/ph...7d24c2ce3a9e1f73d59c
(28 pages).
The theory also featured on the Jennifer Marohasy blog recently.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...se-effect/#more-5058
Ah, following this visit I see there is a new entry that includes Miskolczi. Jen seems to like this subject!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-the-seas/#more-5251
You may need to move to the top of the page from these links as they copy the "read more" URL on the main blog.
Steve_M had a problem with equation (7) on Miskolczi's main paper, but this 2:1 ratio (2/3) has since been shown by other means and in other papers. It seems to work!
The most beautiful thing about Miskolczi theory for me is that it underpins the "atmospheric window" principle that we engineers like to use. More than this, it's detailed as "radiative theory". Could this be a "bridge" between disciplines!
From my last link to Jennifer's blog, ask yourself! Does Gaia provide a stable environment for Darwinian development, or dose Darwinian development provide stability to Gaia?
Personally, I don't think Darwinian development is possible without given stable parameters for it to develop into. Surely this must make chemistry the priority before biology can gain a foothold (I've avoided Darwin stuff before now as I'm crap on biology)?
Best regards, suricat.
Suricat, here's a bit more empirical falsification to follow. It looks like the sacred mantra that relative humidity is constant may have been observed not to be correct see this.
Son of Mulder.
As I've already said, this subject has been done to death on the CA forum and continues to be discussed elsewhere. However, the CA discussion died with many issues not discussed, so I weighed in (probably a bit heavy) to promote discourse and I'm glad I did because the science is now looking more towards the inclusion of an Earth model en mass, other than a purely representational radiative model.
With regard to the RH graph in your link, please realise that the temperature reference is missing!
When temperature increases with the SH (specific humidity) limited by available atmospheric water at that altitude the RH will always reduce! Please note that the average global near surface RH (where water is nearly always available) remains at a near constant, yet the 700 milli bar level (fairly close to surface) is falsely reducing in that graph! IMHO, this 700 Mb RH state reflects/indicates either "surface cooling/reducing insolation", or "atmospheric warming with WV permitted to rise at a greater velocity" (reduced diurnal impact). The latter would be concomitant with an increase in CO2. However, climate is realised at about 1,000 Mb, which is where we live!
So, not much change here. Eh? There is a difference between "climate science" (where we live) and "atmospheric science" (where we sometimes "fly" [if we're lucky enough to do so]).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Suricat, here's a bit more empirical falsification to follow. It looks like the sacred mantra that relative humidity is constant may have been observed not to be correct see this.
As I've already said, this subject has been done to death on the CA forum and continues to be discussed elsewhere. However, the CA discussion died with many issues not discussed, so I weighed in (probably a bit heavy) to promote discourse and I'm glad I did because the science is now looking more towards the inclusion of an Earth model en mass, other than a purely representational radiative model.
With regard to the RH graph in your link, please realise that the temperature reference is missing!
When temperature increases with the SH (specific humidity) limited by available atmospheric water at that altitude the RH will always reduce! Please note that the average global near surface RH (where water is nearly always available) remains at a near constant, yet the 700 milli bar level (fairly close to surface) is falsely reducing in that graph! IMHO, this 700 Mb RH state reflects/indicates either "surface cooling/reducing insolation", or "atmospheric warming with WV permitted to rise at a greater velocity" (reduced diurnal impact). The latter would be concomitant with an increase in CO2. However, climate is realised at about 1,000 Mb, which is where we live!
So, not much change here. Eh? There is a difference between "climate science" (where we live) and "atmospheric science" (where we sometimes "fly" [if we're lucky enough to do so]).
Best regards, suricat.
Suricat, here's another interesting observation... increasing cloud cover from increasing airborne vegetation particles because of lengthening growing seasons because of the anthropic CO2 warming....ie a negative feedback which is treated in the GCM's as positive feedback. Yet another empirical nail in the coffin of dangerous anthropic global warming.
Son of Mulder.
If anything SoM, this belies the theory that low sunspot activity (etc) accelerates CCN. IOW, "there is already a plethora of atmospheric particles to condense WV" already in the atmosphere, without the inclusion of "extraterritorial" particulates to Earth's atmosphere!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Suricat, here's another interesting observation... increasing cloud cover from increasing airborne vegetation particles because of lengthening growing seasons because of the anthropic CO2 warming....ie a negative feedback which is treated in the GCM's as positive feedback. Yet another empirical nail in the coffin of dangerous anthropic global warming.
If anything SoM, this belies the theory that low sunspot activity (etc) accelerates CCN. IOW, "there is already a plethora of atmospheric particles to condense WV" already in the atmosphere, without the inclusion of "extraterritorial" particulates to Earth's atmosphere!
Best regards, suricat.
Suricat, here's hot from the press an excellent presentation by Richard Lindzen which indicates extremely strong empirical evidence that climate sensitivity is very low approx 0.5 deg C.
The only conclusion that I can draw from it is that there is a strong negative feedback mechanism that responds to anthropic warming.
Whether it's Lindzen's iris effect or increased organic material in the atmosphere increasing cloud cover doesn't matter as the effect of the phenomenon has been clearly measured. I think the piece of work by Lindzen will go down in the annals as a real tipping point in the AGW debate.
The only conclusion that I can draw from it is that there is a strong negative feedback mechanism that responds to anthropic warming.
Whether it's Lindzen's iris effect or increased organic material in the atmosphere increasing cloud cover doesn't matter as the effect of the phenomenon has been clearly measured. I think the piece of work by Lindzen will go down in the annals as a real tipping point in the AGW debate.
Son of Mulder.
Er, I concur with a caveat.
To me the sensitivity of a system is its ability to respond to inputs, but we also need to know whether the system's response is negative, or positive, to the input applied. Knowing that Dr Lindzen excels in the hydrosphere field, I assume that his findings are related to this (the hydrosphere). In which case, I'd say that climate sensitivity is very highly negative to increasing temps on a macro scale, but very highly positive to increasing temps on a radiative scale. Thus, it's a very sensitive thermostat that is set to warm radiatively, but is outweighed by its macro latent transport and cloud generating (insolation reflecting) properties.
However, the negative response is negated where water from the surface is unavailable (either by evaporation, or transpiration) from a region downwind (from "prevailing" winds) as precipitation.
Yes. Latent transport and cloud reflection of insolation. However, the anthropogenic summation is inconsequential to my belief.
Well I'd rate this as a parallel to the Miskolczi revelation. Hovever, the "Iris Effect" only explains the 'rationale' behind certain types of cloud that radiate into outer space, and "increased organic material" in the atmosphere doesn't affect the 'relative humidity' (RH) factor at near surface altitudes where climate materialises.
OK, so Dr Lindzen supports latent transport, but I'm unsure of his support to 'cloud condensation nuclei' (CCN) based on the available CCN naturally occurring within the atmosphere. No mater the level of solar wind, the CCN are already there.
A more rational explanation for cloud cover can be found in the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship for pressure and temperature. No mater the level of CCN forcing a possible pricipitation, temperature and pressure of surface water and atmosphere dictates the rate of evaporation. Thus, abundant CCN can only force precipitation and a reduction in altitude of the tropopause, but if the troposphere is "de-watered" of water vapour (WV) to sufficient degree the "radiative" element of feedback is also reduced (reducing the positive temp feedback of the "thermostat").
IOW, I consider that WV is responsible for most of the "greenhouse effect" (GHE) that we enjoy, but it's also responsible for the negative side of GHE when WV over-saturates the troposphere.
It's a job to determine which side of the "thermostat" is most persistent!
Perhaps we are coming to a new Ice Age? This is the most likely outcome from historical record.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Suricat, here's hot from the press an excellent presentation by Richard Lindzen which indicates extremely strong empirical evidence that climate sensitivity is very low approx 0.5 deg C.
Er, I concur with a caveat.
To me the sensitivity of a system is its ability to respond to inputs, but we also need to know whether the system's response is negative, or positive, to the input applied. Knowing that Dr Lindzen excels in the hydrosphere field, I assume that his findings are related to this (the hydrosphere). In which case, I'd say that climate sensitivity is very highly negative to increasing temps on a macro scale, but very highly positive to increasing temps on a radiative scale. Thus, it's a very sensitive thermostat that is set to warm radiatively, but is outweighed by its macro latent transport and cloud generating (insolation reflecting) properties.
However, the negative response is negated where water from the surface is unavailable (either by evaporation, or transpiration) from a region downwind (from "prevailing" winds) as precipitation.
quote:
The only conclusion that I can draw from it is that there is a strong negative feedback mechanism that responds to anthropic warming.
Yes. Latent transport and cloud reflection of insolation. However, the anthropogenic summation is inconsequential to my belief.
quote:
Whether it's Lindzen's iris effect or increased organic material in the atmosphere increasing cloud cover doesn't matter as the effect of the phenomenon has been clearly measured. I think the piece of work by Lindzen will go down in the annals as a real tipping point in the AGW debate.
Well I'd rate this as a parallel to the Miskolczi revelation. Hovever, the "Iris Effect" only explains the 'rationale' behind certain types of cloud that radiate into outer space, and "increased organic material" in the atmosphere doesn't affect the 'relative humidity' (RH) factor at near surface altitudes where climate materialises.
OK, so Dr Lindzen supports latent transport, but I'm unsure of his support to 'cloud condensation nuclei' (CCN) based on the available CCN naturally occurring within the atmosphere. No mater the level of solar wind, the CCN are already there.
A more rational explanation for cloud cover can be found in the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship for pressure and temperature. No mater the level of CCN forcing a possible pricipitation, temperature and pressure of surface water and atmosphere dictates the rate of evaporation. Thus, abundant CCN can only force precipitation and a reduction in altitude of the tropopause, but if the troposphere is "de-watered" of water vapour (WV) to sufficient degree the "radiative" element of feedback is also reduced (reducing the positive temp feedback of the "thermostat").
IOW, I consider that WV is responsible for most of the "greenhouse effect" (GHE) that we enjoy, but it's also responsible for the negative side of GHE when WV over-saturates the troposphere.
It's a job to determine which side of the "thermostat" is most persistent!
Perhaps we are coming to a new Ice Age? This is the most likely outcome from historical record.
Best regards, suricat.
Son of Mulder.
Don't know if you've seen this;
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
It's the final response from the NIPCC to the IPCC's AR4.
Best regards, suricat.
Don't know if you've seen this;
http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
It's the final response from the NIPCC to the IPCC's AR4.
Best regards, suricat.
Suricat, I think you'll enjoy this essayif you haven't already read it.
A remarkably clear description of a mechanism that will act as a thermostat on the warming properties of CO2 or other warming sources.
A remarkably clear description of a mechanism that will act as a thermostat on the warming properties of CO2 or other warming sources.
Son of Mulder.
I haven't read this before, but I like it even if it is a bit "flowery" (and inaccurate) in places. However, please realise that this only applies to the equatorial region of the Hadley Cells.
You'll find that Cumulonimbus Cloud (Thunderheads) don't draw WV (feed) directly from the surface at other latitudes on the Earth, only where the surface pressure is lowered to a sufficient level ,with compliant SSTs, for this to occur (e.g. a hurricane). However, at the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) Earth's radial centrifuge velocity of about 8cm/sec^2 is enough to produce this "surface to strat 'tube'" phenomenon with a singular "Thunderhead".
This is a part of the thermostat that controls Earth's overall climate, but I don't think that Willis made a good enough point for a global thermostat, or its altered hysteresis with latitude increase. Only ITCZ! However, I know that you hate models as much as I do and look for observations. This is a good observation for the ITCZ and underlines some of our prior discussions on the old C4 site. Nice one SoM!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Suricat, I think you'll enjoy this essayif you haven't already read it.
A remarkably clear description of a mechanism that will act as a thermostat on the warming properties of CO2 or other warming sources.
I haven't read this before, but I like it even if it is a bit "flowery" (and inaccurate) in places. However, please realise that this only applies to the equatorial region of the Hadley Cells.
You'll find that Cumulonimbus Cloud (Thunderheads) don't draw WV (feed) directly from the surface at other latitudes on the Earth, only where the surface pressure is lowered to a sufficient level ,with compliant SSTs, for this to occur (e.g. a hurricane). However, at the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) Earth's radial centrifuge velocity of about 8cm/sec^2 is enough to produce this "surface to strat 'tube'" phenomenon with a singular "Thunderhead".
This is a part of the thermostat that controls Earth's overall climate, but I don't think that Willis made a good enough point for a global thermostat, or its altered hysteresis with latitude increase. Only ITCZ! However, I know that you hate models as much as I do and look for observations. This is a good observation for the ITCZ and underlines some of our prior discussions on the old C4 site. Nice one SoM!
Best regards, suricat.