Skip to main content

Suricat
quote:
This is a part of the thermostat that controls Earth's overall climate


I think his contention is that it's a very major part. I've tried to find out if such a process is in the models (or if they predict it accurately). Again we need Steve_M. If not reflected in the models then they are clearly more than worthless at predicting climate in their current form.
SO
quote:
Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
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.


Nice read SoM, I enjoyed it so much I went searching for more from Mr Eschenbach and found this most interesting. You and suricat have probably seen it on CA but I thought I'd post it for any interested onlookers Smiler
Ensign Muf
Son of Mulder.

quote:

I've tried to find out if such a process is in the models (or if they predict it accurately).

Well I've only looked into the GISS Model E before (I think), but I didn't see anything representative of true cloud in the programme (there just wasn't a fine enough resolution if I remember correctly). Why don't you take a look.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/gcms.html
There are a few GCMs on that site. I can't remember the HD space needed for the download so check first. There's also an editing gismo to use with your PC so that you can easily read and set the FORTRAN scripts.

It's all very interesting, but also time consuming. The thing is supposed to be written in FORTRAN, but when you look at it with the editing tool you'll find that nearly every language under the Sun is in there (including Java, Python and Rose) so perhaps the script is really a compiler. Cobbly Worlds first introduced me to this, when he was around, but I just can't get the time in big enough chunks to get back into it. The UK Met Office has other versions. Enjoy!

Any queries? I'll try to help!

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder.

On the subject of GCMs, it's a while since I visited the CA blog so I was surprised to read this;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6234#more-6234

Super-Parameterization! Well I did say that they should treat GCMs like video gaming machines. This extra resolution to each cell apparently shows WV and low cloud as more negative than previously shown by models (wouldn't you just know it). However, it wouldn't matter if they duplicated a parallel Earth accurately, they could only hind cast because we can't predict the future more than for a few days ahead with an acceptable level of certainty.


Reading about this brought me to remember our discussions on C4 about constant average global RH and the possibility that total SH + atmospheric water could be a metric for an average 10 day global temp. Well moving on from that, there are an awful lot of metrics that seem to coincide with one-another in a "loose relationship" that may explain a tipping point or two. I'll explain.

The Physical Proponents.
1. Sea surface temp (SST) and boundary layer atmosphere temp are ultimately responsible for the level of specific humidity (SH) [physical and factual observation].
2. Diurnal temp instability, land area and contour, advection, etc. are responsible for Earth's unique default average global relative humidity (RH) [physical and factual observation].
3. Although solar variance is minor, the propensity of sunspots is directly proportional to the level of ultraviolet (UV) insolation of Earth and this varies greatly [physical and factual observation].
4. The average global temp anomaly record indicates much coincidence of elevated temps during sustained high sunspot count periods. Thus, sustained elevated UV insolation levels seem to positively affect temps [visual comparison of graphic material with provenance].
5. Infrared (IR) and visual spectra of radiation become extinct after passing through only several metres of water and ice. However, the UV spectra of radiation that strike the Earth's surface can pass several hundreds of metres into water and ice before extinction, it also is virtually unimpeded by cloud which only diffuses UV [physical and factual observation].
6. About 90% of the greenhouse effect (GHE) for outgoing IR radiation is due to WV. Thus, about 90% of outgoing IR is thermalised below the mid troposphere region by WV, and low cloud also heavily retards, and latently buffers, outgoing IR radiation [accepted radiative theory, and physical and factual observation for latent buffering].
7. Milankovich Cycles can predict total solar insolation (TSI), but don't resolve many outcomes of historical climate. However, Milankovich Cycles don't include the level of sunspot activity (and UV insolation level) that can become the donor of energy that is able to preclude, or exclude, an ice age, as a short wavelength radiation absorbed gives more energy than a longer wavelength's radiation's absorbed energy [conjecture, as I'm unaware of any accepted comparison that combines Milankovich Cycles against sunspots with a radiative theory's impact].

The Hypothesis.
Although TSI doesn't alter to any appreciable degree due to a Milankovich Cycle, the insolation of UV to the Earth is always changing dependant upon sunspot propensity. The greater the sunspot manifestation, the greater the UV insolation level, and as we know from the history of the Maunder Minimum that this variability of UV is a causal factor to Earth's global temperature alteration (this is where I'd normally just post a link to the page of a site, but this site isn't made that way, so).
http://www.climate4you.com/
Now that you see the index page, click on the "Sun" category in the L/H sidebar to see the page that I reference.
Thus, UV is a major influence for any change to climate, or at the very least, temperatures!

It's easy to make such a statement, but it's important to describe the 'rationale' behind the 'statement' for better understanding (I'm getting back into the habit of single quotes for important parts of the post again. Sorry!).

Dependant upon the Milankovich Cycle 'level' of forcing, the solar UV radiance determines the glaciation, or non glaciation phase of Earth's climate because UV is the source of heat to the lower ocean depths that can carry the Earth through a 'glaciation phase' without it's 'actual glaciation'. I'm happy that we are at a 'high insolation point' of a 'Milankovich Cycle' at this point of 'solar minimum'.

What do you think?

Best regards, suricat.
S
Suricat
quote:
On the subject of GCMs, it's a while since I visited the CA blog so I was surprised to read this;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6234#more-6234


Just confirms how primitive and open to potential bias the models have been.

Until the cloud stuff is understood the debates we've had about chaos etc don't become relevant. The aerosol stuff is relevant because of their potential role in the superparameterisation of clouds. The Eschenbach stuff presents an excellent way of thinking about viewing the earth (from the sun). I wish I'd thought of that back in the debates with Steve_M.

On another tack I think the study of jolts to the earth system by El Ninos and La Ninas potentially provide a way to test Eschenbach's hypothesis.

And on yet another tack did you see this on Watts up. Watt's submission is a savage indictment of the temperature measuring game in the US.
SO
Son of Mulder.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/200...-eruption/#more-8826

What a "telling" photo!

A nice picture, but it doesn't say much of the forcing to climate (whatever that constitutes). I'm curious, what do you think that this pictorial data adds to a climate debate other than justify one of the many reasons for a "space station" in orbit?

This is an obvious forcing to the regional climate, but to what extent would you expect this "one shot" phenomenon to exert a forcing to any interaction with local attractors at this level of interactivity (I know that this is a 'tall order' and I'll excuse your 'rebuttal')?


I think the "Els and Las" are the result of an MEP tipping point. The "normal mode" is El NiÃąo, but when the ocean/atmosphere interface is swamped with energy the hydrocycle response trips the region into a La NiÃąa mode. The result is a limit upon the maximum uptake of energy by the ocean. Pretty much the same as what Eschenbach postulates.

On the CA site, the question of a climate metric has been asked again. What would be your suggestion for a metric that would define the climate for a region? As I've said in the past, I think that total atmospheric column WV + water would best define this (as an H2O response seems to reflect the energy levels of many attractors), but what would be your choice for a metric?

Best regards, suricat.
S
Greying Blondie.

quote:

The factual actualities do not correspond to the fearmongering statements do they!


Welcome here Blondie (I'll ignore the "Greying").

If you understand what they are really saying then they don't, period! Nice to meet someone that seems like minded. However, I am dubious of outcomes should we ever get out of this solar minimum. Perhaps it will start all over again from the current "set point".

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder.

quote:

Suricat, Well, well well.

Sorry, but this does not compute. A comparison of temps/warming between particular dates needs a correlation of relevant points within cycles as well.

I would normally use the European Centre, SIDC, for data ref, but their site has had broken links for a long time now. So I'll use "climate4you". Not so prestigious, but it's good and it's there.
http://www.climate4you.com/
Now click "Sun" in the L/H sidebar, then click "Solar irradiance and sunspot number" as your page menu choice.

This graph displays both solar irradiance (in red) and sunspot number (in blue) from 1979-2002. I'm afraid it doesn't extend to June 2009, but then again we already know that we are in a period with virtually no sunspots now. So during 1979 solar irradiance was at a peak, but during 2009 solar irradiance is at a trough. Thus, these periods are not directly compatible for a warming analysis.

If you doubt the validity of this falsification, scroll to the top of the page and click "Global temperature and sunspot number" as your page menu choice.

This graph depicts HadCRUT3 against sunspot numbers (it's not UHA temps, but it's the best I can find for now). I think you can easily see that heavy sunspot activity pushes temps upwards. Thus, if we were at peak sunspot activity in 2009 we would expect a more elevated temp!

I really think we should make warming comparisons at identical phases of the sunspot cycle and not at 180 deg (anti phase).

Hope this helps. Smiler

Best regards, suricat.
S
Son of Mulder & mufcdiver.

I didn't know whether to link this here, or in "The Asylum", but even Einstein had a problem with this one!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9613...-Higgs-boson-SOLVED-
Will we see a Higgs boson, or just an "elastic" Higgs field that is the ether?

I've a problem with the density of space plasma being denser than that of matter plasma as density is a property of "matter", but space matter being without charge, or spin?

This reminds me of "leocor" and his Plasma Theory SoM (probably misspelled his user name). Smiler

Best regards, suricat.

BTW, for easier reading, just set your browser to 150% zoom, centralise the page and you'll find that the print is a lot easier to read! (edited for easier reading)
S
Last edited {1}
Suricat
quote:
Sorry, but this does not compute. A comparison of temps/warming between particular dates needs a correlation of relevant points within cycles as well.

I would normally use the European Centre, SIDC, for data ref, but their site has had broken links for a long time now. So I'll use "climate4you". Not so prestigious, but it's good and it's there.
http://www.climate4you.com/
Now click "Sun" in the L/H sidebar, then click "Solar irradiance and sunspot number" as your page menu choice.


Thanks for the Climate4you ref (a treasure trove). I'd somehow missed this site despite all the AGW related reading and googling that I do. I agree totally your point about working between similar points in the cycle. 5 years hence will be an interesting time in how these graphs evolve. Hopefully there will be greater clarity on what causes the drift between the satellite record and the terrestrial record.
SO
Son of Mulder.

quote:

Hopefully there will be greater clarity on what causes the drift between the satellite record and the terrestrial record.

A very good point SoM. The most obvious causal factor is that the surface record (terrestrial) for atmospheric temps is observed at the surface, but the nearest satellite record for surface atmospheric temps is in the low troposphere. However, there are also anomalies that the satellites observe which remain unobserved by the sensing equipment on the surface:
http://www.ssmi.com/rss_research/tmi_solar_flare.html
These spurious anomalies need to be recognised, accepted for their validity to temps and should be properly classified in the temperature record (or should that be the entropy record?).

It should be noted that, in accordance with convention, X-rays (even "soft" X-rays, or "short" UV) don't make it through the atmosphere to the surface. However, satellite observations prove otherwise!

So, what does this say about "convention"? Wink

It's way past my bedtime so I've got to go now. Sleepy

Best regards, suricat.
S
Suricat
quote:
The most obvious causal factor is that the surface record (terrestrial) for atmospheric temps is observed at the surface, but the nearest satellite record for surface atmospheric temps is in the low troposphere. However, there are also anomalies that the satellites observe which remain unobserved by the sensing equipment on the surface:



I bet it's simpler than that and related to Urban Heat Island (UHI) related influences, construction process and the fact that satellite is more truly global.
SO
Son of Mulder.

quote:

I bet it's simpler than that and related to Urban Heat Island (UHI) related influences, construction process and the fact that satellite is more truly global.

Yes! Each metric has its obfuscation and the "best estimate" can only be the most understanding equivalent between the available metrics!

"UHI" affects the surface temp record and "space weather" affects the satellite lower tropo temp record. We need to be sure that we read our multi-meter within its "half to full scale deflection" accuracy. That's why I drew your attention to the RSS anomaly. It's not true that soft X-ray and short UV makes it down to surface, but it is true that a resonant factor of these frequencies makes planet-fall as an observed "microwave signature". The energy makes it through.

To my mind, neither metric is accurate. However, a composite between the two can be assimilated into something that is between "near surface" and "surface". However, I don't like all this averaging. All that "averaging" does is to obscure the raw data that shows true energy transfer/transport!

By "construction process" do you imply graphical construction, or engineering construction (as in a UHI alteration)?


There is something that you and muf can get your "teeth into" on tamino! Look at this;
http://tamino.wordpress.com/20...-lock/#comment-32836
It's all about WV feedback.

Best regards, suricat.
S

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×