quote:"increased ".." likelihood of strong El Niños"?
This is a quote from the paper that I edited so that, grammatically it more sense in my post. I don't think change it so much as to misrepresent the paper(to be sure please follow the link
)This is a quote from the paper that I edited so that, grammatically it more sense in my post. I don't think change it so much as to misrepresent the paper(to be sure please follow the link
)
mufcdiver.
I don't know which part of the paper your question relates to (a more exact ref would be appreciated), but for a general overview.
Earth's oceans and seas attract energy in a variety of ways and by varying degrees. I suppose the easiest way for me to explain this would be by considering the ocean as an "attractor" of energy. If I limit this to "heat caused by CO2" it isn't going to amount to much of a post, all GHG's would amount to a reasonable post, but the whole enchilada (including the logic behind the "Els and Las") would be a long post (all explanations would also be in "engineering speak", I'm not conversant enough with "papers" diversity yet).
Make your choice and I'll post what I can. Though, Jennifer's post here may help, as it's along the same line of reasoning as the paper you reference. An SRES:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-ian-read/#more-6017
Best regards, suricat.
quote:More of a question really but in This paper from Hansen et-al, what are the mechanics for the transference of heat caused by co2 from the 'airier' portion of the atmosphere into the oceans to cause [with hind-sight] the "increased ".." likelihood of strong El Niños"?
I don't know which part of the paper your question relates to (a more exact ref would be appreciated), but for a general overview.
Earth's oceans and seas attract energy in a variety of ways and by varying degrees. I suppose the easiest way for me to explain this would be by considering the ocean as an "attractor" of energy. If I limit this to "heat caused by CO2" it isn't going to amount to much of a post, all GHG's would amount to a reasonable post, but the whole enchilada (including the logic behind the "Els and Las") would be a long post (all explanations would also be in "engineering speak", I'm not conversant enough with "papers" diversity yet).
Make your choice and I'll post what I can. Though, Jennifer's post here may help, as it's along the same line of reasoning as the paper you reference. An SRES:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-ian-read/#more-6017
Best regards, suricat.
From the first paragraph
"Global surface temperature has increased 0.2°C per decade in the
past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in
initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse
gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific
than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños , such as those of
1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this
critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is
approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and
within1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.
We conclude that global warming of more than 1°C, relative to
2000, will constitute ‘‘dangerous’’ climate change as judged from
likely effects on sea level and extermination of species."
I've bolded the relevant sentence.
Is this more Butterfly effect?
"Global surface temperature has increased 0.2°C per decade in the
past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in
initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse
gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific
than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños , such as those of
1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this
critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is
approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and
within1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.
We conclude that global warming of more than 1°C, relative to
2000, will constitute ‘‘dangerous’’ climate change as judged from
likely effects on sea level and extermination of species."
I've bolded the relevant sentence.
Is this more Butterfly effect?
mufcdiver.
Quite the opposite. It's the upper point of stability for ocean surface temperatures. That's why they also claim "Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.", so it doesn't really get any warmer!
The "Butterfly Effect" is to do with "chaos theory", where the predictability of an outcome from a given set of start point data can result in multiple outcomes (the problem with climate models and why they need to be "tweaked").
As I said, this paper is an SRES paper (Special Report on Emission Scenarios). Which means that the paper's conclusion is biased by uncertainties in many areas (see the link in my last post). I suppose that you could say the conclusion of the paper includes a Butterfly Effect.
Having said that it doesn't really get any warmer, it can get cooler. History has shown this with our understanding of cool periods like the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum etc. (associated with low TSI).
WRT "strong El Niño". This is the result of cyclical weather systems that come into phase. When they are out of phase they are given the label of La Niña because they are weak and effeminate (just how macho can you get)!
Hope this helps and if I haven't covered everything, please post again.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Is this more Butterfly effect?
Quite the opposite. It's the upper point of stability for ocean surface temperatures. That's why they also claim "Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.", so it doesn't really get any warmer!
The "Butterfly Effect" is to do with "chaos theory", where the predictability of an outcome from a given set of start point data can result in multiple outcomes (the problem with climate models and why they need to be "tweaked").
As I said, this paper is an SRES paper (Special Report on Emission Scenarios). Which means that the paper's conclusion is biased by uncertainties in many areas (see the link in my last post). I suppose that you could say the conclusion of the paper includes a Butterfly Effect.
Having said that it doesn't really get any warmer, it can get cooler. History has shown this with our understanding of cool periods like the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum etc. (associated with low TSI).
WRT "strong El Niño". This is the result of cyclical weather systems that come into phase. When they are out of phase they are given the label of La Niña because they are weak and effeminate (just how macho can you get)!
Hope this helps and if I haven't covered everything, please post again.
Best regards, suricat.
Been digging around suricat and I think the the only way that the reflected energy from GHGs could effect the El Niños events with any balls would be if it was stored within the oceanic conveyor system and was released thus.quote:Originally posted by mufcdiver:
More of a question really but in This paper from Hansen et-al, what are the mechanics for the transference of heat caused by co2 from the 'airier' portion of the atmosphere into the oceans to cause [with hind-sight] the "increased ".." likelihood of strong El Niños"?
Wouldn't this take decades? even centuries?
Son of Mulder.
I recently saw an article on the WUWT site to do with solar cycle 24 being overtaken by cycle 25, thus no change of polarity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...5-has-already-begun/
Which led me to a guest post by David Archibald indicated on another page of the WUWT site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...-repeat-is-possible/
Where I found a link to; theglobalwarmingnow.wordpress.com site, which also linked (eventually) to:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=181
Now I'm interested!
Thus, I decided to address the source of the anomaly. NASA! The nearest subject that I found to this anomaly was this page;
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...ws/solarcycle24.html
but it isn't the full anomaly. There is a link at that page that suggests greater clarity, but the link is "broken" (the Apache server returns an Error 404, "URL not found").
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/sunspotcycle.shtml
By now I'm beginning to think that NASA, with its large budget, is skimping on the budget for their comms net stuff, but then I found this!
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/res...es/pubs/savc0707.pdf
By courtesy of the first page I saw at WUWT!
Is NASA winding the spring, then ducking out to avoid implication? I suppose I could be deluded into thinking of a "conspiracy theory" on this! There again, there is also pertinent evidence of a slide into some sort of sunspot minima period that includes low maxima level, seems to be initiated by NASA, but is somehow removed from NASA.
What are your thoughts SoM (either on solar activity, or NASA policy)?
Before you say it. Yes! I would also like the opinion of Steve_M on this!
Best regards, suricat.
I recently saw an article on the WUWT site to do with solar cycle 24 being overtaken by cycle 25, thus no change of polarity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...5-has-already-begun/
Which led me to a guest post by David Archibald indicated on another page of the WUWT site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...-repeat-is-possible/
Where I found a link to; theglobalwarmingnow.wordpress.com site, which also linked (eventually) to:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=181
Now I'm interested!
Thus, I decided to address the source of the anomaly. NASA! The nearest subject that I found to this anomaly was this page;
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...ws/solarcycle24.html
but it isn't the full anomaly. There is a link at that page that suggests greater clarity, but the link is "broken" (the Apache server returns an Error 404, "URL not found").
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/sunspotcycle.shtml
By now I'm beginning to think that NASA, with its large budget, is skimping on the budget for their comms net stuff, but then I found this!
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/res...es/pubs/savc0707.pdf
By courtesy of the first page I saw at WUWT!
Is NASA winding the spring, then ducking out to avoid implication? I suppose I could be deluded into thinking of a "conspiracy theory" on this! There again, there is also pertinent evidence of a slide into some sort of sunspot minima period that includes low maxima level, seems to be initiated by NASA, but is somehow removed from NASA.
What are your thoughts SoM (either on solar activity, or NASA policy)?
Before you say it. Yes! I would also like the opinion of Steve_M on this!
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
Well, Yes! However, it'll take a lot of ocean "mixing" to get ocean surface temps (or near surface depth temps) down to a depth where it can be included with the oceanic conveyor system.
GHGs (which radiate IR) only radiate to a few metres of ocean depth. Thus, any GHG "feedback" to ocean temp can only affect ocean surface temp, which also affects the "El's and La's" (bad grammar for emphasis).
UV directly infuses depths, that include the oceanic conveyor, with energy. What of this?
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Been digging around suricat and I think the the only way that the reflected energy from GHGs could effect the El Niños events with any balls would be if it was stored within the oceanic conveyor system and was released thus.
Wouldn't this take decades? even centuries?
Well, Yes! However, it'll take a lot of ocean "mixing" to get ocean surface temps (or near surface depth temps) down to a depth where it can be included with the oceanic conveyor system.
GHGs (which radiate IR) only radiate to a few metres of ocean depth. Thus, any GHG "feedback" to ocean temp can only affect ocean surface temp, which also affects the "El's and La's" (bad grammar for emphasis).
UV directly infuses depths, that include the oceanic conveyor, with energy. What of this?
Best regards, suricat.
Son of Mulder.
And then I found this paper describing a "lost cycle" at the start of the Dalton Minimum.
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalev..._SP477_lostcycle.pdf
Best regards, suricat.
And then I found this paper describing a "lost cycle" at the start of the Dalton Minimum.
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalev..._SP477_lostcycle.pdf
Best regards, suricat.
suricat
I've got to the stage now where there are so many cycles interacting with each other i'm not even convinced that the effect of any one can be identified in the global temperature record (even if it were reasonably accurate).
It may help Svensmark draw some empirical conclusions about cosmic ray efects.
There was a nice article on WUWT today which just about sums up the impact side of things as we've often discussed.
It makes me think more and more that the science and models is a sideshow to distract from solid, realistic planning vs artificial panic considerstions.
I particularly the perspective created by this quote from the essay.
""Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be.""
quote:What are your thoughts SoM (either on solar activity, or NASA policy)?
I've got to the stage now where there are so many cycles interacting with each other i'm not even convinced that the effect of any one can be identified in the global temperature record (even if it were reasonably accurate).
It may help Svensmark draw some empirical conclusions about cosmic ray efects.
There was a nice article on WUWT today which just about sums up the impact side of things as we've often discussed.
It makes me think more and more that the science and models is a sideshow to distract from solid, realistic planning vs artificial panic considerstions.
I particularly the perspective created by this quote from the essay.
""Consider that the global population increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion this year. Among other things, this meant creating the infrastructure for an extra 4.3 billion people in the intervening 59 years (as well as improving the infrastructure for the 2.5 billion counted in the baseline, many of whom barely had any infrastructure whatsoever in 1950). These improvements occurred at a time when everyone was significantly poorer. (Global per capita income today is more than 3.5 times greater today than it was in 1950). Therefore, while relocation will be costly, in theory, tomorrow’s much wealthier world ought to be able to relocate billions of people to higher ground over the next few centuries, if need be.""
mufcdiver.
I was hoping that you would come back with a post saying that perhaps deep ocean forms the main "backdrop" for ocean surface and near ocean surface temps. Thus. During 'extended low UV insolation' scenarios the "backdrop" is "kicked away" and ocean surface and near surface temps are left solely to their own energy levels for temp maintenance.
This may well be a reason for the apparent correlation between solar sunspot proliferation and surface temp, but there is more to this, the 10 cm flux and solar wind speed may also factor (as well as shorter wavelengths of insolation "percolating" down as half, of quarter, wavelength pulses).
Best regards, suricat.
I was hoping that you would come back with a post saying that perhaps deep ocean forms the main "backdrop" for ocean surface and near ocean surface temps. Thus. During 'extended low UV insolation' scenarios the "backdrop" is "kicked away" and ocean surface and near surface temps are left solely to their own energy levels for temp maintenance.
This may well be a reason for the apparent correlation between solar sunspot proliferation and surface temp, but there is more to this, the 10 cm flux and solar wind speed may also factor (as well as shorter wavelengths of insolation "percolating" down as half, of quarter, wavelength pulses).
Best regards, suricat.
Son of Mulder.
Following a couple of rants on the C4 site on this very subject, I can only concur SoM!
That's why I proposed the tropo column WV and water content as a metric for climate (with an elastic altitude for the tropopause).
Let's hope so. Though I think that his expected effect is restricted to regions of WV saturation. Thus, mostly nocturnal effect.
To be honest, I can't recollect any of our discussions on "impact". Perhaps this is because I don't consider the result of "impact" to be beyond our ability to "respond" in all but the most unlikely circumstance.
However!
I'm all for it. China has been castigated for its action to limit population growth, but China is really the first to recognise the real problem and make some attempt to deal with it. I know this sounds callous, but at least China has evoked an honest policy (albeit a callous one) (but this is politics, not science).
Personally, I think that "education of the masses" on the subject of "over population" is more humanitarian, as it allows for personal preference and comes up with roughly the same population reduction as "The China Model" in the final equation.
But of course "science and models is a sideshow"! Just like we engineers find, no government can allow a "mad scientist" (modeller, or engineer) to control "POLICY"!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I've got to the stage now where there are so many cycles interacting with each other i'm not even convinced that the effect of any one can be identified in the global temperature record (even if it were reasonably accurate).
Following a couple of rants on the C4 site on this very subject, I can only concur SoM!
That's why I proposed the tropo column WV and water content as a metric for climate (with an elastic altitude for the tropopause).
quote:
It may help Svensmark draw some empirical conclusions about cosmic ray efects.
Let's hope so. Though I think that his expected effect is restricted to regions of WV saturation. Thus, mostly nocturnal effect.
quote:
There was a nice article on WUWT today which just about sums up the impact side of things as we've often discussed.
To be honest, I can't recollect any of our discussions on "impact". Perhaps this is because I don't consider the result of "impact" to be beyond our ability to "respond" in all but the most unlikely circumstance.
However!
quote:
It makes me think more and more that the science and models is a sideshow to distract from solid, realistic planning vs artificial panic considerstions.
I particularly the perspective created by this quote from the essay.
I'm all for it. China has been castigated for its action to limit population growth, but China is really the first to recognise the real problem and make some attempt to deal with it. I know this sounds callous, but at least China has evoked an honest policy (albeit a callous one) (but this is politics, not science).
Personally, I think that "education of the masses" on the subject of "over population" is more humanitarian, as it allows for personal preference and comes up with roughly the same population reduction as "The China Model" in the final equation.
But of course "science and models is a sideshow"! Just like we engineers find, no government can allow a "mad scientist" (modeller, or engineer) to control "POLICY"!
Best regards, suricat.
suricat
I don't know if you remember suricat, but I was looking into UV effects on water (both frozen & liquid) on C4s boards with out a great deal of success. I even had an email exchange with Dr Paul Crutzen which came to nothing.
Have you had better luck?
quote:UV directly infuses depths, that include the oceanic conveyor, with energy. What of this?
I don't know if you remember suricat, but I was looking into UV effects on water (both frozen & liquid) on C4s boards with out a great deal of success. I even had an email exchange with Dr Paul Crutzen which came to nothing.
Have you had better luck?
mufcdiver.
Ah yes, Ah reemembeur eet well.
Yes, and again, I'm sorry if you had a bad time over this.
Prefer chance, or hapstance, to luck.
Because UV is high energy it has a tendency to alter chemistry during its absorption, thus UV was dubbed "chemical rays" during the 19th century, so much of the research into its increased inclusion within insolation (mainly because of the O3 hole) has been levelled at health issues and not GW issues.
There seem to be few papers that deal with GW by UV from what I can find online. However, the science seems sound enough to me. Water doesn't absorb much UV insolation:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html#uv
Stands to reason that if it's unimpeded by waterborne particulates (blue line), it'll get to about 700m of ocean depth (depth to extinction).
During this ocean penetration the energy must transit to some place, or other, and is probably "subdued" by means of a harmonic interaction (½, or ¼ wave depletion [reference radio aerial technology, it confirms both macro and micro admittance for EM absorption]). An "incomplete interaction" of this type wouldn't impart the total (chemical altering) energy of UV, just some of its value. Thus, longer wavelengths can gain from an incomplete interaction with a shorter wavelength (and vice versa, but not investigated in the case under discussion). Perhaps this is what "some people" call absorption "wings", or a "pressure broadening" type observation!
As it happens, the "deep ocean temperature" lower boundary is 750m. Is this to include the possible factor of UV insolation? It's just unfortunate that it hasn't been logged accurately yet (ces't la vie).
I still put my reputation on everything that I've posted here and on the old C4 site (that's one reason why I keep copies of all my posts, I'm just a "sincere engineer" in the "help and learn" loop).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I don't know if you remember suricat, but I was looking into UV effects on water (both frozen & liquid) on C4s boards with out a great deal of success.
Ah yes, Ah reemembeur eet well.
quote:
I even had an email exchange with Dr Paul Crutzen which came to nothing.
Yes, and again, I'm sorry if you had a bad time over this.
quote:
Have you had better luck?
Prefer chance, or hapstance, to luck.
Because UV is high energy it has a tendency to alter chemistry during its absorption, thus UV was dubbed "chemical rays" during the 19th century, so much of the research into its increased inclusion within insolation (mainly because of the O3 hole) has been levelled at health issues and not GW issues.
There seem to be few papers that deal with GW by UV from what I can find online. However, the science seems sound enough to me. Water doesn't absorb much UV insolation:
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html#uv
Stands to reason that if it's unimpeded by waterborne particulates (blue line), it'll get to about 700m of ocean depth (depth to extinction).
During this ocean penetration the energy must transit to some place, or other, and is probably "subdued" by means of a harmonic interaction (½, or ¼ wave depletion [reference radio aerial technology, it confirms both macro and micro admittance for EM absorption]). An "incomplete interaction" of this type wouldn't impart the total (chemical altering) energy of UV, just some of its value. Thus, longer wavelengths can gain from an incomplete interaction with a shorter wavelength (and vice versa, but not investigated in the case under discussion). Perhaps this is what "some people" call absorption "wings", or a "pressure broadening" type observation!
As it happens, the "deep ocean temperature" lower boundary is 750m. Is this to include the possible factor of UV insolation? It's just unfortunate that it hasn't been logged accurately yet (ces't la vie).
I still put my reputation on everything that I've posted here and on the old C4 site (that's one reason why I keep copies of all my posts, I'm just a "sincere engineer" in the "help and learn" loop).
Best regards, suricat.
Does UV have any interaction with water vapor in this way suricat?
Takes me back to ice melt and UVs role in it!
mufcdiver.
Do you know what, I don't know. It's a good question though.
OK! I've spent most of the night searching and I've turned up a few links. Google Books turned up an interesting title;
http://books.google.com/books?...v=onepage&q=&f=false
Don't ask me anything about the link, I've yet to read it. I also found this;
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1706486
A paper that suggests a change in the absorption spectra of WV when UV is also present. I'm not sure if this is instrumental biasing, or a change to the attractor (WV), but it looks to be connected to this Russian paper;
http://resources.metapress.com...1380464&size=largest
It's late and it looks like I've a lot of reading to do (when I'm able to get around to it), so it's beginning to look as though there could be another "biasing effect" caused by UV. Interesting!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Does UV have any interaction with water vapor in this way suricat?
Do you know what, I don't know. It's a good question though.
OK! I've spent most of the night searching and I've turned up a few links. Google Books turned up an interesting title;
http://books.google.com/books?...v=onepage&q=&f=false
Don't ask me anything about the link, I've yet to read it. I also found this;
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1706486
A paper that suggests a change in the absorption spectra of WV when UV is also present. I'm not sure if this is instrumental biasing, or a change to the attractor (WV), but it looks to be connected to this Russian paper;
http://resources.metapress.com...1380464&size=largest
It's late and it looks like I've a lot of reading to do (when I'm able to get around to it), so it's beginning to look as though there could be another "biasing effect" caused by UV. Interesting!
Best regards, suricat.
I found this from Australia which is bothered solely with clouds and refraction. It possibly asks more questions that it answers on here but it also begs the question; Are the right questions being asked?
mufcdiver.
I think your link is about "atmospheric lensing" of insolation (thus, local) and not the effect of insolation per se. It's 03:30 here and I really need some sleep. Though, I also doubt that the right questions are being asked.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I found this from Australia which is bothered solely with clouds and refraction. It possibly asks more questions that it answers on here but it also begs the question; Are the right questions being asked?
I think your link is about "atmospheric lensing" of insolation (thus, local) and not the effect of insolation per se. It's 03:30 here and I really need some sleep. Though, I also doubt that the right questions are being asked.
Best regards, suricat.
Do you think this could stand a thread of its own suricat?
suricat here's another potential empirical falsification to follow over the next few weeks. It's easy to understand and plausible.
it's essentially looking at monthly raw temperature data and looking for temperature trends in long lived stations vs short stay stations. Very Interesting results. Shame he hasn't graphed them. I have and it looks a convincing result.
it's essentially looking at monthly raw temperature data and looking for temperature trends in long lived stations vs short stay stations. Very Interesting results. Shame he hasn't graphed them. I have and it looks a convincing result.
mufcdiver.
I don't think so. I only have the Internet for research and I've already knocked myself out trying to find info. The Google book was pointless and the papers were only part papers, but it does look as though UV causes a similar effect to pressure banding on radiative absorption spectra in the scant info I've seen. Nothing concrete.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Do you think this could stand a thread of its own suricat?
I don't think so. I only have the Internet for research and I've already knocked myself out trying to find info. The Google book was pointless and the papers were only part papers, but it does look as though UV causes a similar effect to pressure banding on radiative absorption spectra in the scant info I've seen. Nothing concrete.
Best regards, suricat.
Know how you feel suricat, its like a metaphoric desert out there!
I'll let you know if I find anything
I'll let you know if I find anything
Son of Mulder.
Of course it is, this is an old trick. It's how The House of Commons won power over The House of Lords in the UK. The House of Commons just kept making Peers until the Commons sympathisers in The House of Lords held the majority. Average biasing is rooted in politics, following a General Election the first thing the new government does is alter the constituency boundaries to bias future elections in their favour (all under the presumption of greater stability).
I saw this earlier and pondered on the point of dividing the globe into pentagonal sectors (like a football), then grid each pentagon evenly. You would still be faced with grid biasing due to differing populations within the grid. It's a bit like trying to see a digital picture with only a random 40%, or less, of the clamped texels showing in the whole picture.
Do you remember me saying to Steve_M that "I wouldn't believe global ave temps unless we had a 'one kilometre' square grid" and his response "I wish"?
Even with the '+c offset' differences on the graph between satellites, I still think the satellites are more believable.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
suricat here's another potential empirical falsification to follow over the next few weeks. It's easy to understand and plausible.
Of course it is, this is an old trick. It's how The House of Commons won power over The House of Lords in the UK. The House of Commons just kept making Peers until the Commons sympathisers in The House of Lords held the majority. Average biasing is rooted in politics, following a General Election the first thing the new government does is alter the constituency boundaries to bias future elections in their favour (all under the presumption of greater stability).
I saw this earlier and pondered on the point of dividing the globe into pentagonal sectors (like a football), then grid each pentagon evenly. You would still be faced with grid biasing due to differing populations within the grid. It's a bit like trying to see a digital picture with only a random 40%, or less, of the clamped texels showing in the whole picture.
Do you remember me saying to Steve_M that "I wouldn't believe global ave temps unless we had a 'one kilometre' square grid" and his response "I wish"?
Even with the '+c offset' differences on the graph between satellites, I still think the satellites are more believable.
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
Thanks for your sentiment muf.
Truth be known, I'm glad to get into something at times (even if I do "overdo it" a bit on occasions). This "carer" lark can get you down a bit when it's 24-7 and it also limits your plans for doing other things.
After posting on "biasing" to SoM I decided to have one more go at this, so I googled 'UV biasing' and got this:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-dis...C1292-2009-print.pdf
A discussion communiqué concerning the satellite pixel (transmitted data content) available for interpretation into surface level data.
It looks like a lost cause for satellites on surface UV. Despite my doubt that the correct sensors are being used to gather the full "solar variation", it seems that information about the atmospheric admittance isn't sent from the satellite either. Thus, ground crews need to splice other data from other satellites that scanned at other times into the mix to get a surface UV insolation level. Plenty of margin for error!
Just after I told SoM that I put my main trust in satellites too!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Know how you feel suricat, its like a metaphoric desert out there!
I'll let you know if I find anything
Thanks for your sentiment muf.
Truth be known, I'm glad to get into something at times (even if I do "overdo it" a bit on occasions). This "carer" lark can get you down a bit when it's 24-7 and it also limits your plans for doing other things.
After posting on "biasing" to SoM I decided to have one more go at this, so I googled 'UV biasing' and got this:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-dis...C1292-2009-print.pdf
A discussion communiqué concerning the satellite pixel (transmitted data content) available for interpretation into surface level data.
It looks like a lost cause for satellites on surface UV. Despite my doubt that the correct sensors are being used to gather the full "solar variation", it seems that information about the atmospheric admittance isn't sent from the satellite either. Thus, ground crews need to splice other data from other satellites that scanned at other times into the mix to get a surface UV insolation level. Plenty of margin for error!
Just after I told SoM that I put my main trust in satellites too!
Best regards, suricat.
Son of Mulder, mufcdiver, et al.
It looks as though our posts are to be incorporated into another site (yet again). I would strongly advise that everyone saves copies of their posts and copies of important responses for reasons of community continuity and cohesion, if nothing else. It seems that the continuity of data, as we've discovered from the change to GaGaJoyJoy site from the C4 Communities site, doesn't comply with data protection laws. Data is lost!
Please make a backup of anything that you consider to be important.
Best regards, suricat.
It looks as though our posts are to be incorporated into another site (yet again). I would strongly advise that everyone saves copies of their posts and copies of important responses for reasons of community continuity and cohesion, if nothing else. It seems that the continuity of data, as we've discovered from the change to GaGaJoyJoy site from the C4 Communities site, doesn't comply with data protection laws. Data is lost!
Please make a backup of anything that you consider to be important.
Best regards, suricat.
Hey guys! How goes it with all that falsification?
Here's a good book to read, to make sure you are well armed...
"What's the worst that could happen: A rational response to the climate change debate"
by
Greg Craven
I can't put it down! I'm reading it right now! It's a laugh a minute! Tee hee!
Here's a good book to read, to make sure you are well armed...
"What's the worst that could happen: A rational response to the climate change debate"
by
Greg Craven
I can't put it down! I'm reading it right now! It's a laugh a minute! Tee hee!
Son of Mulder.
Here's an interesting piece by Doug L Hoffman:
http://theresilientearth.com/?...african-dust-new-co2
Concerning dust from the Sahara to the Amazon Basin. It seems that the Sahara Desert fertilises the Amazon Basin with about 40 million tons of minerals in a year. Perhaps it helps heat the atmosphere, but it shades the ocean. That's an awful lot of global dimming!
There are also some useful links, including papers.
Hi Lucibee, nice to hear from you again.
Best regards, suricat.
Here's an interesting piece by Doug L Hoffman:
http://theresilientearth.com/?...african-dust-new-co2
Concerning dust from the Sahara to the Amazon Basin. It seems that the Sahara Desert fertilises the Amazon Basin with about 40 million tons of minerals in a year. Perhaps it helps heat the atmosphere, but it shades the ocean. That's an awful lot of global dimming!
There are also some useful links, including papers.
Hi Lucibee, nice to hear from you again.
Best regards, suricat.
OK, and what's the mechanism for the action of dust on the climate that would explain the recent increases in temperature?
Oh right! There are no recent increases in temperature. So why are we looking at dust again?
Oh right! There are no recent increases in temperature. So why are we looking at dust again?
Hi, Lucibee.
I thought you were conversant with global warming and global cooling Luci. Warming may be caused by an increase in solar insolation, or a reduction in outgoing long-wave radiation and cooling may be caused by a reduction in solar insolation, or an increase in outgoing long-wave radiation (or partly by each of those mentioned before, as a mix).
There are also biasing effects that move energy from one part of the climate system to another. For example, atmospheric dust (aerosol particulates) may well (depending on the type of particulate) absorb, or reflect, more energy in the atmosphere than would be if the particulate wasn't there. The end result - whether the atmosphere absorbs more energy or not - is that Earth's surface doesn't receive as much solar insolation. Solar insolation is biased to alter from its normal surface and ocean warming, to the atmosphere or back into space.
I could go on, as there are other phenomenon that can cause biasing, but I'll not.
Personally (although I'm sure most others would disagree), I think that the recent total solar insolation level is the prime candidate for the recent changes that we've observed, together with a less marked effect by agents introduced from anthropogenic sources.
Two main reasons. There seems to be new "open" evidence, and Son of Mulder's pet subject is/was aerosols. Why pose this question?
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
OK, and what's the mechanism for the action of dust on the climate that would explain the recent increases in temperature?
I thought you were conversant with global warming and global cooling Luci. Warming may be caused by an increase in solar insolation, or a reduction in outgoing long-wave radiation and cooling may be caused by a reduction in solar insolation, or an increase in outgoing long-wave radiation (or partly by each of those mentioned before, as a mix).
There are also biasing effects that move energy from one part of the climate system to another. For example, atmospheric dust (aerosol particulates) may well (depending on the type of particulate) absorb, or reflect, more energy in the atmosphere than would be if the particulate wasn't there. The end result - whether the atmosphere absorbs more energy or not - is that Earth's surface doesn't receive as much solar insolation. Solar insolation is biased to alter from its normal surface and ocean warming, to the atmosphere or back into space.
I could go on, as there are other phenomenon that can cause biasing, but I'll not.
Personally (although I'm sure most others would disagree), I think that the recent total solar insolation level is the prime candidate for the recent changes that we've observed, together with a less marked effect by agents introduced from anthropogenic sources.
quote:
Oh right! There are no recent increases in temperature. So why are we looking at dust again?
Two main reasons. There seems to be new "open" evidence, and Son of Mulder's pet subject is/was aerosols. Why pose this question?
Best regards, suricat.
It just baffles me why you spend so much time and energy on this when there are people paid to do this stuff for you.
I would have thought that the most comforting thing is that if we are responsible (ok, albeit partly), then at least we can do something about it.
However, if we are as insignificant as all you "sceptics" are making out, then heaven help us all! The climate has been terribly fickle in the past.
I don't doubt that aerosols, cosmic rays, TSI fluctuations (albeit small), dust storms, con trails, etc etc all play their part - but we cannot model them and use them to tell us what may happen 10 or 20 years down the line until we understand them a little better.
And in the meantime, the temperature just keeps going up and the ice keeps on melting (even though TSI is going down!).
I would have thought that the most comforting thing is that if we are responsible (ok, albeit partly), then at least we can do something about it.
However, if we are as insignificant as all you "sceptics" are making out, then heaven help us all! The climate has been terribly fickle in the past.
I don't doubt that aerosols, cosmic rays, TSI fluctuations (albeit small), dust storms, con trails, etc etc all play their part - but we cannot model them and use them to tell us what may happen 10 or 20 years down the line until we understand them a little better.
And in the meantime, the temperature just keeps going up and the ice keeps on melting (even though TSI is going down!).
Lucibee.
So are you telling me that you would submit your vote to any which person that volunteers to make your vote (whichever way)! I think not (otherwise, you would not be here)! You are here to "have your say" as much as the next person (like myself). I implore dialogue!
As an engineer I'll be the first to admit that the recent conjecture and theory that science "turns up" is often "hard to digest" (at the least), but so many of these - theories, conjectures - are so outside of the real and natural world that they really do need to be taken to task. The science domain is currently so full of pseudo-science that the "real science" just doesn't seem to come through.
Guess why I post.
A most important statement Luci! The point is, is our AGW signature enough to make a difference (either way)? What does comfort have to do with this?
But then again, that is a factor of what the AGW debate is about.
Personally, I don't want to pursue this line of debate further. I'm more interested in the science of it.
Another reason for my interest in this subject.
BTW. New ice is increasing in the NH (looks like dirty ice melts, but new ice [devoid of particulate contamination] doesn't)!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
It just baffles me why you spend so much time and energy on this when there are people paid to do this stuff for you.
So are you telling me that you would submit your vote to any which person that volunteers to make your vote (whichever way)! I think not (otherwise, you would not be here)! You are here to "have your say" as much as the next person (like myself). I implore dialogue!
As an engineer I'll be the first to admit that the recent conjecture and theory that science "turns up" is often "hard to digest" (at the least), but so many of these - theories, conjectures - are so outside of the real and natural world that they really do need to be taken to task. The science domain is currently so full of pseudo-science that the "real science" just doesn't seem to come through.
Guess why I post.
quote:
I would have thought that the most comforting thing is that if we are responsible (ok, albeit partly), then at least we can do something about it.
A most important statement Luci! The point is, is our AGW signature enough to make a difference (either way)? What does comfort have to do with this?
But then again, that is a factor of what the AGW debate is about.
Personally, I don't want to pursue this line of debate further. I'm more interested in the science of it.
quote:
And in the meantime, the temperature just keeps going up and the ice keeps on melting (even though TSI is going down!).
Another reason for my interest in this subject.
BTW. New ice is increasing in the NH (looks like dirty ice melts, but new ice [devoid of particulate contamination] doesn't)!
Best regards, suricat.
To your first point, no, I would not submit my vote to "any which person"! Would you? My point is that we do not need to understand all the science as fully as all the experts put together in order to make up our minds about this. That is why the IPCC was formed.
I am even more swayed by the urgency of this problem since companies such as Shell, BP, and Exxon have come on board.
The science domain is not full of pseudo-science. The blogosphere might well be, but that's not the peer-reviewed science domain. I would suggest that you are looking in the wrong places.
Our AGW signature is now accepted as being enough to make the difference. Comfort probably has very little to do with this if you are not intending to stick around for the next 20 years or so. If you are, however, then it might be wise to listen up!
Finally - what is this evidence about new ice in the NH? I think you might misunderstand the significance of the quantities of new ice. An increase in 1-year ice is an indication that older ice is disappearing at a faster rate. If we are only left with 1-year ice, then that means that it is not very long before the north pole will be ice-free in summer.
Is that what you are talking about?
I am even more swayed by the urgency of this problem since companies such as Shell, BP, and Exxon have come on board.
The science domain is not full of pseudo-science. The blogosphere might well be, but that's not the peer-reviewed science domain. I would suggest that you are looking in the wrong places.
Our AGW signature is now accepted as being enough to make the difference. Comfort probably has very little to do with this if you are not intending to stick around for the next 20 years or so. If you are, however, then it might be wise to listen up!
Finally - what is this evidence about new ice in the NH? I think you might misunderstand the significance of the quantities of new ice. An increase in 1-year ice is an indication that older ice is disappearing at a faster rate. If we are only left with 1-year ice, then that means that it is not very long before the north pole will be ice-free in summer.
Is that what you are talking about?
quote:
What did you say about blogs
Lucibee.
I thought that my previous posts made this self evident, but for the record. No!
I concur, but when we see controversy to our pertinent and personal understanding, should we not post on this? You never know, we may even be able to learn by this process (myself included). Surely a relative understanding of the science offered is a prerequisite to a decision of who should be given any proxy of your vote.
No! That is why the IPCC was formed by a political body. The WMO (an arm of the UN) evoked the existence of the IPCC at the request of the UN to quantify the level of anthropogenic "forcings" to our climate. Thus, the IPCC was set up by a policy issue of the UN to the WMO and is a political body that reports back to the WMO and the UN (bodies that only consider policy)! Why should they have any interest in science other than population and voting potential, besides the usual humanitarian effort?
It's after 2 am and I can't respond to the remainder of your post here (I'm too knackered). Speak to you later.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
To your first point, no, I would not submit my vote to "any which person"! Would you?
I thought that my previous posts made this self evident, but for the record. No!
quote:
My point is that we do not need to understand all the science as fully as all the experts put together in order to make up our minds about this.
I concur, but when we see controversy to our pertinent and personal understanding, should we not post on this? You never know, we may even be able to learn by this process (myself included). Surely a relative understanding of the science offered is a prerequisite to a decision of who should be given any proxy of your vote.
quote:
That is why the IPCC was formed.
No! That is why the IPCC was formed by a political body. The WMO (an arm of the UN) evoked the existence of the IPCC at the request of the UN to quantify the level of anthropogenic "forcings" to our climate. Thus, the IPCC was set up by a policy issue of the UN to the WMO and is a political body that reports back to the WMO and the UN (bodies that only consider policy)! Why should they have any interest in science other than population and voting potential, besides the usual humanitarian effort?
It's after 2 am and I can't respond to the remainder of your post here (I'm too knackered). Speak to you later.
Best regards, suricat.
Lucibee.
Hi again. I think you'll find that commercial companies go with the flow. They look for good PR and profit, so if the groundswell is strong enough for all to increase their end price in unison they'll all receive greater profit. Business has always been good at diversity and innovation.
It's not just the "blogosphere", the last two reviewed papers I read were absolute faff and it all came down to one incorrect assumption.
We humans have left an AGW signature ever since we lit fires for warmth and cooking. We increased our signature when we started farming and increased it again when we started moving our produce over increasing distances. Of course we make a difference, but for now I'll have to leave it to destiny for the answer to my own eventual fate.
This isn't what I implied. Old ice contains inclusions of soot and dust from the atmosphere and tiny dead fauna and flora which has slowly altered its albedo over the years, but new ice is clean and doesn't attract so much insolation. I think you'll find that Arctic ice melt is cyclic due to this.
Sorry for the compressed post style. BTW, did your House Martins come back this year?
No comparison. It's a lot easier to model a phenomenon than it is to model a climate. I'd be more interested in why the Southern Oscillation (SO) exists than just using its index (SOI) to replicate another phenomenon.
I guess this is just because of a question I've asked myself for as long as I can remember. Why?
Best regards, suricat.
Hi again. I think you'll find that commercial companies go with the flow. They look for good PR and profit, so if the groundswell is strong enough for all to increase their end price in unison they'll all receive greater profit. Business has always been good at diversity and innovation.
It's not just the "blogosphere", the last two reviewed papers I read were absolute faff and it all came down to one incorrect assumption.
We humans have left an AGW signature ever since we lit fires for warmth and cooking. We increased our signature when we started farming and increased it again when we started moving our produce over increasing distances. Of course we make a difference, but for now I'll have to leave it to destiny for the answer to my own eventual fate.
This isn't what I implied. Old ice contains inclusions of soot and dust from the atmosphere and tiny dead fauna and flora which has slowly altered its albedo over the years, but new ice is clean and doesn't attract so much insolation. I think you'll find that Arctic ice melt is cyclic due to this.
Sorry for the compressed post style. BTW, did your House Martins come back this year?
quote:
No need for dust:
No comparison. It's a lot easier to model a phenomenon than it is to model a climate. I'd be more interested in why the Southern Oscillation (SO) exists than just using its index (SOI) to replicate another phenomenon.
I guess this is just because of a question I've asked myself for as long as I can remember. Why?
Best regards, suricat.
suricat:
This is never included in any stories of ice melt suricat ; I take it you are talking about UV
quote:Old ice contains inclusions of soot and dust from the atmosphere and tiny dead fauna and flora which has slowly altered its albedo over the years, but new ice is clean and doesn't attract so much insolation. I think you'll find that Arctic ice melt is cyclic due to this.
This is never included in any stories of ice melt suricat ; I take it you are talking about UV
mufcdiver.
Oh. Another late post. Guess this is a part of my lifestyle!
Yes and no! Solid particulates are included with aerosols, but are really a different animal altogether. This may sound like a pun on words, but it isn't. A true "aerosol" is a compound that "evaporates" in air to the singular molecule level of its compound state. A "particulate" aerosol is a compound that doesn't evaporate in air to the singular molecule level of its compound state. Aerosols are reduced to their molecule level in the atmosphere, but solid particulates are not. Personally, I think that these aerosols should be separately categorised, but they're not. C'est la vie!
A word on absorption. Both solar insolation and OLR may, or may not, be absorbed by a single molecule of a true "aerosol" (depending on it's absorption spectrum). However, a "particulate" (a particle consisting of many molecules) represents a "surface albedo" that only reflects, or absorbs, insolation. When it absorbs, it warms the surrounding atmosphere altering the CC relationship for humidity and can generate "IR down-welling". However, when in ice, it just warms the ice more.
Either scenario for particulates also robs the ocean of warmth (global dimming).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
This is never included in any stories of ice melt suricat ; I take it you are talking about UV
Oh. Another late post. Guess this is a part of my lifestyle!
Yes and no! Solid particulates are included with aerosols, but are really a different animal altogether. This may sound like a pun on words, but it isn't. A true "aerosol" is a compound that "evaporates" in air to the singular molecule level of its compound state. A "particulate" aerosol is a compound that doesn't evaporate in air to the singular molecule level of its compound state. Aerosols are reduced to their molecule level in the atmosphere, but solid particulates are not. Personally, I think that these aerosols should be separately categorised, but they're not. C'est la vie!
A word on absorption. Both solar insolation and OLR may, or may not, be absorbed by a single molecule of a true "aerosol" (depending on it's absorption spectrum). However, a "particulate" (a particle consisting of many molecules) represents a "surface albedo" that only reflects, or absorbs, insolation. When it absorbs, it warms the surrounding atmosphere altering the CC relationship for humidity and can generate "IR down-welling". However, when in ice, it just warms the ice more.
Either scenario for particulates also robs the ocean of warmth (global dimming).
Best regards, suricat.
Suricat, I think you need to do some basic research on the nature of politics.
Of course the UN is a political organisation - by its nature, politics is the means by which science (and other areas) is translated into action (policy). Until we have a mechanism whereby scientists can reach consensus and enact it on their own, we are stuck with bodies like governments and the UN, I'm afraid. Would you rather that a body was formed that had no mandate from the human population? At least most governments receive such a mandate from their people. Those that don't rarely seem to pay much attention to the UN!
Politics is a necessary part of the way in which our civilisation operates. On the whole, the UN's aim is to look after the interests of the people on this planet - which is why they are so concerned about global warming.
Businesses, on the other hand, are only interested in their bottom line - in the interest of their shareholders. They are only indirectly linked to the rest of the human population.
The martins are wheeling above my head, but none have nested here this year. Market forces dictated that the sparrows got all the best nesting sites (again).
Of course the UN is a political organisation - by its nature, politics is the means by which science (and other areas) is translated into action (policy). Until we have a mechanism whereby scientists can reach consensus and enact it on their own, we are stuck with bodies like governments and the UN, I'm afraid. Would you rather that a body was formed that had no mandate from the human population? At least most governments receive such a mandate from their people. Those that don't rarely seem to pay much attention to the UN!
Politics is a necessary part of the way in which our civilisation operates. On the whole, the UN's aim is to look after the interests of the people on this planet - which is why they are so concerned about global warming.
Businesses, on the other hand, are only interested in their bottom line - in the interest of their shareholders. They are only indirectly linked to the rest of the human population.
The martins are wheeling above my head, but none have nested here this year. Market forces dictated that the sparrows got all the best nesting sites (again).
Lucibee.
Not interested. Nature, yes. Policy, no. Does this make me a renegade?
All I'm interested in is the way that things work. I am an engineer after all!
With all due respect! These are not "Market forces". They form part of the "might is right" scenario for any conceptualisation of the natural progression of a species. This mimics fascism more than democracy.
Nothing to do with policy, or politics. Only survival of the species, thus, its all down to the survivability of conflict for each ethnic species and their adaptability in the face of an altered circumstance (though I'm sure you'll disagree).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Suricat, I think you need to do some basic research on the nature of politics.
Not interested. Nature, yes. Policy, no. Does this make me a renegade?
All I'm interested in is the way that things work. I am an engineer after all!
quote:
Market forces dictated that the sparrows got all the best nesting sites (again).
With all due respect! These are not "Market forces". They form part of the "might is right" scenario for any conceptualisation of the natural progression of a species. This mimics fascism more than democracy.
Nothing to do with policy, or politics. Only survival of the species, thus, its all down to the survivability of conflict for each ethnic species and their adaptability in the face of an altered circumstance (though I'm sure you'll disagree).
Best regards, suricat.