Ok here we go again. I found this list of 10 AGW fallacies today .
Which of the 10 myths can be refuted.... where is Steve_M?
Which of the 10 myths can be refuted.... where is Steve_M?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Mufc
Excellent video, I hadn't seen that before but I'd read about Bob Carter....pretty much sums up my position.
Lucibee
Yes elementary risk management without the weightings of likelihood, or the base case of business as usual where many of the technology challenges are being worked anyway while the AGW picture evolves ie prepare doesn't need to include implement from the start but only when the empirical evidence becomes significantly supportive.... none of it is anything like overnight type urgency.
quote:This google video kinda fits in with that SoM,
Excellent video, I hadn't seen that before but I'd read about Bob Carter....pretty much sums up my position.
Lucibee
quote:I have a video too!
I would have loved to post this on the C4 forum...
Yes elementary risk management without the weightings of likelihood, or the base case of business as usual where many of the technology challenges are being worked anyway while the AGW picture evolves ie prepare doesn't need to include implement from the start but only when the empirical evidence becomes significantly supportive.... none of it is anything like overnight type urgency.
I have a pdf Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics and its been through the peer review doodah!
err... which journal?
International Journal of Modern Physics Bquote:Originally posted by Lucibee:
err... which journal?
Son of Mulder.
High five SoM!
Probably most of them.... And I think Steve_M is taking a sabbatical at "C A", but If I understand him, his curiosity will get the better of him, we'll hear from him soon. "Falsification" is too strong an attractant to keep him away (so is obsfuscation)! I've no doubt he's ogling this site for anything that 'piques' his interest (just like me).
With all due respect SoM, we've already been through these principles. How do you regard the MEP (maximum entropy production) principle? Here's a link to an important paper that describes this (basically) for climate cells.
http://home.iitk.ac.in/~osegu/Entropy_Prod2.pdf
I can't see any centrifugal influence from Earth rotation in their math model. Can you?
Best regards, suricat.
High five SoM!
quote:
Which of the 10 myths can be refuted.... where is Steve_M?
Probably most of them.... And I think Steve_M is taking a sabbatical at "C A", but If I understand him, his curiosity will get the better of him, we'll hear from him soon. "Falsification" is too strong an attractant to keep him away (so is obsfuscation)! I've no doubt he's ogling this site for anything that 'piques' his interest (just like me).
With all due respect SoM, we've already been through these principles. How do you regard the MEP (maximum entropy production) principle? Here's a link to an important paper that describes this (basically) for climate cells.
http://home.iitk.ac.in/~osegu/Entropy_Prod2.pdf
I can't see any centrifugal influence from Earth rotation in their math model. Can you?
Best regards, suricat.
Hey suricat
Have you had a look at the pdf that I posted?
I first saw it on CA at the version that I linked to, haven't seen the published version though( something to do with actually paying for the priv.)
Have you had a look at the pdf that I posted?
I first saw it on CA at the version that I linked to, haven't seen the published version though( something to do with actually paying for the priv.)
I'm not a physicist. I'll have to ask the guys at RealClimate about that one.
Where's Steve_M when you need him?
mufcdiver.
I've bought a "dongle" for my laptop so I'm able to download stuff better now. I've seen this paper before and it's a long read so I really don't want to read it again. However, (when I did read it) it seems to be in general agreement with my direction of understanding, which is:
CO2 is too sparse to be a major contributor to atmospheric warming; back radiation is an apparent effect and not a cause (in analogy, a bit like registering 'back EMF' [EMF = electromotive force, or volts] in only part of an electrical inductor within an 'AC circuit' for a 'grey body', or with a resistor transposed with the inductor for a 'black body').
Put succinctly, a radiative model doesn't account for a climate because climate can only be modelled by the actions of the mass within the atmosphere, as and when, they are prescribed/proscribed by radiative influences from outside of the atmosphere.
As for privileges, the most recent papers to gain acceptance are nearly always hidden behind a 'money wall' and can't be posted in a forum (well they can, but fellow forum readers will have to pay to see them).
Best regards, suricat (simples, ha, I like that).
quote:
Hey suricat
Have you had a look at the pdf that I posted?
I first saw it on CA at the version that I linked to, haven't seen the published version though( something to do with actually paying for the priv.)
I've bought a "dongle" for my laptop so I'm able to download stuff better now. I've seen this paper before and it's a long read so I really don't want to read it again. However, (when I did read it) it seems to be in general agreement with my direction of understanding, which is:
CO2 is too sparse to be a major contributor to atmospheric warming; back radiation is an apparent effect and not a cause (in analogy, a bit like registering 'back EMF' [EMF = electromotive force, or volts] in only part of an electrical inductor within an 'AC circuit' for a 'grey body', or with a resistor transposed with the inductor for a 'black body').
Put succinctly, a radiative model doesn't account for a climate because climate can only be modelled by the actions of the mass within the atmosphere, as and when, they are prescribed/proscribed by radiative influences from outside of the atmosphere.
As for privileges, the most recent papers to gain acceptance are nearly always hidden behind a 'money wall' and can't be posted in a forum (well they can, but fellow forum readers will have to pay to see them).
Best regards, suricat (simples, ha, I like that).
Apparently, it's all nonsense:
Failure of peer review
Note that the article you cited is a review article and is not primary research...
Failure of peer review
Note that the article you cited is a review article and is not primary research...
And here is proof...
Geoman.
This should be a better place for readers to download this .pdf file;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2767
as it's the destination of the archive link.
Please pardon my extra link Geoman, as many ex-C4 posters are .pdf archive source challenged due to their exclusions from the old C4 web-site (this probably includes me).
I think that this is an excellent comment paper that outlines some of the failings of ignoring a full 'Earth model' when accounting for 'radiative balance' relative to Earth's climate.
The 'two shell model' of 'surface' and 'radiating atmosphere' for OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation) only emphasises the activity of latent convection in the absence of OLR's 'escape' from the Earth system (the main role of the atmospheric hydrocycle, and mass, to an altitude of somewhere above the mid tropo only increases providence for MEP (maximum entropy production) theory). The proverbial 33 degrees centigrade differential between the observed temp from space and the ave global near surface temp springs to mind!
I'm sure there is more to discuss on this. It really is a shame that Steve_M isn't here to add to our chatter.
A welcome introduction to the debate for my part (even if my math isn't fully up to speed).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
You guys may be interested in this
This should be a better place for readers to download this .pdf file;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.2767
as it's the destination of the archive link.
Please pardon my extra link Geoman, as many ex-C4 posters are .pdf archive source challenged due to their exclusions from the old C4 web-site (this probably includes me).
I think that this is an excellent comment paper that outlines some of the failings of ignoring a full 'Earth model' when accounting for 'radiative balance' relative to Earth's climate.
The 'two shell model' of 'surface' and 'radiating atmosphere' for OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation) only emphasises the activity of latent convection in the absence of OLR's 'escape' from the Earth system (the main role of the atmospheric hydrocycle, and mass, to an altitude of somewhere above the mid tropo only increases providence for MEP (maximum entropy production) theory). The proverbial 33 degrees centigrade differential between the observed temp from space and the ave global near surface temp springs to mind!
I'm sure there is more to discuss on this. It really is a shame that Steve_M isn't here to add to our chatter.
A welcome introduction to the debate for my part (even if my math isn't fully up to speed).
Best regards, suricat.
quote:Originally posted by Lucibee:
Apparently, it's all nonsense:
Failure of peer review
Note that the article you cited is a review article and is not primary research...
Luci, Mr Rabbett should try practicing what he preaches and maybe then he would realise what a steaming pile he had posted! Thank you for linking to that 'pile'[not]
Lucibee.
Oh, Luci!
From my experience with Eli, only the minimum data is offered in any communication. The data offered is usually obtuse and difficult to follow. Although the guy is very intelligent and well adept within his field, he tends to be too cryptic to be helpful in a discussion.
The "Smith" paper that you reference is the paper that Geoman's linked paper comments upon. BTW, I don't know whether a 'comment paper' needs to be reviewed or not to be valid as a 'comment' (in my estimation, I doubt that Geoman's linked paper needs to be reviewed to be a valid "comment").
Hope this helps.
Best regards, suricat.
Oh, Luci!
From my experience with Eli, only the minimum data is offered in any communication. The data offered is usually obtuse and difficult to follow. Although the guy is very intelligent and well adept within his field, he tends to be too cryptic to be helpful in a discussion.
The "Smith" paper that you reference is the paper that Geoman's linked paper comments upon. BTW, I don't know whether a 'comment paper' needs to be reviewed or not to be valid as a 'comment' (in my estimation, I doubt that Geoman's linked paper needs to be reviewed to be a valid "comment").
Hope this helps.
Best regards, suricat.
I'm outta here. If you are simply going to dismiss the evidence like that, then there is no hope for any of us!
I'll wait until one of your falsification papers gets into Science or Nature, and then get back to you.
I'll wait until one of your falsification papers gets into Science or Nature, and then get back to you.
MUFC
Another goody Mufc. Have you discovered a Pandoras box since leaving C4. I particularly like 4.3 Science and Global Climate Modelling, starting on page 88 and the Physicists Summary on page 92.
Steve_M is a physicist whereas I'm a lapsed applied mathematician who specialised in theoretical physics, so his comments would be of interesting to me. I suspect he is lost to us now and I don't hold out Suricat's optimism that he will reappear.
Suricat
I came across it as I was looking for something to kickstart discussion here as we have lost our vast repository of threads from C4 days.
As for "How do you regard the MEP (maximum entropy production) principle?". I'm a great believer that all physical action can be formulated as least action principles like in lagrangian and hamiltoniam formulation of classical mechanics. This was extended to Quantum and relativistic realms. The challenge is to find the functions (Actions) to be minimised (or maximised). It can be reduced to a minimisation problem by taking the recoprocal of the maximised quantity. The general topic is call the Principle of Least Action.
As to whether "Entropy Production of Atmospheric Heat Transport" is such an action to be maximised will be an interesting area to follow as it may well have an impact on GCM formulation.
That's possible because when dealing with least action your're dealing with an integrated function and it is only when you differentiate it that the physics you are used to appears.
I can't judge the validity in this case but I know from experience (many years ago) that it is so in lagrangian mechanics. In that the Action was L=T-V where T is kinetic energy and V is gravitational potential energy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
quote:I have a pdf Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics and its been through the peer review doodah!
Another goody Mufc. Have you discovered a Pandoras box since leaving C4. I particularly like 4.3 Science and Global Climate Modelling, starting on page 88 and the Physicists Summary on page 92.
Steve_M is a physicist whereas I'm a lapsed applied mathematician who specialised in theoretical physics, so his comments would be of interesting to me. I suspect he is lost to us now and I don't hold out Suricat's optimism that he will reappear.
Suricat
quote:With all due respect SoM, we've already been through these principles. How do you regard the MEP (maximum entropy production) principle? Here's a link to an important paper that describes this (basically) for climate cells.
I came across it as I was looking for something to kickstart discussion here as we have lost our vast repository of threads from C4 days.
As for "How do you regard the MEP (maximum entropy production) principle?". I'm a great believer that all physical action can be formulated as least action principles like in lagrangian and hamiltoniam formulation of classical mechanics. This was extended to Quantum and relativistic realms. The challenge is to find the functions (Actions) to be minimised (or maximised). It can be reduced to a minimisation problem by taking the recoprocal of the maximised quantity. The general topic is call the Principle of Least Action.
As to whether "Entropy Production of Atmospheric Heat Transport" is such an action to be maximised will be an interesting area to follow as it may well have an impact on GCM formulation.
quote:I can't see any centrifugal influence from Earth rotation in their math model. Can you?
That's possible because when dealing with least action your're dealing with an integrated function and it is only when you differentiate it that the physics you are used to appears.
I can't judge the validity in this case but I know from experience (many years ago) that it is so in lagrangian mechanics. In that the Action was L=T-V where T is kinetic energy and V is gravitational potential energy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
quote:I'm outta here. If you are simply going to dismiss the evidence like that, then there is no hope for any of us!
Woops. Sorry I stirred up so much venom chaps!
What a busy day today. Here's an interesting empirical falsification of AGW... one I'd not seen before. Ocean Heat anomoly
Looks like the heat content of the oceans has been decreasing over the last few years whereas the models predict it should have been increasing.
Looks like the heat content of the oceans has been decreasing over the last few years whereas the models predict it should have been increasing.
Geoman.
RE: "Woops". I think this is my line Geo. I didn't mean to cause any upset by suggesting that a comment paper shouldn't need a peer review, as I think that this is part of the process of disproving a paper that already enjoys the peer review label. Meaning, the 'comment' is intended to reopen discussion on the 'already reviewed paper'.
But, hey, I'm not a scientist either and I thought we were all here in this forum for discussion!
Lucibee: I profoundly apologise if I caused your indignation. However, I would dearly like to hear the reasons for your disagreement and not someone else's. Take a trip to Climate Audit's forum and ask EliRabbet a question (Eli is there, but is usually cryptic when responding). Simples!
Best regards, suricat.
RE: "Woops". I think this is my line Geo. I didn't mean to cause any upset by suggesting that a comment paper shouldn't need a peer review, as I think that this is part of the process of disproving a paper that already enjoys the peer review label. Meaning, the 'comment' is intended to reopen discussion on the 'already reviewed paper'.
But, hey, I'm not a scientist either and I thought we were all here in this forum for discussion!
Lucibee: I profoundly apologise if I caused your indignation. However, I would dearly like to hear the reasons for your disagreement and not someone else's. Take a trip to Climate Audit's forum and ask EliRabbet a question (Eli is there, but is usually cryptic when responding). Simples!
Best regards, suricat.
quote:Originally posted by Lucibee:
I'm outta here. If you are simply going to dismiss the evidence like that, then there is no hope for any of us!
I'll wait until one of your falsification papers gets into Science or Nature, and then get back to you.
Sorry Luci, I posted before I saw your second post linking to Smiths paper, the Rabbett blog just touched a nerve at the end of a long day (His kind of dismissive arrogance really rankles me)
As for Smiths paper, this seem (at first glace) to be a far more appropriate riposte to Gerlich and Tscheuschner s paper (Notwithstanding Kramm, Dlugi & zelgar s comments). I'll reply after reading both( distracted by footie tonight! Yay Reds
)Please be aware though that we are all on the same side and I do believe that humanity is in 'dire straits', I personally think that our biggest problem is general land [mis]management dating back thousands of years, and the need for this to be addressed trumps co2 induced climate change.( I know that many solutions for the latter would aid the former, but hey, lets have the horse before the cart for once)! Lets start living with this planet, not on it!!!
Son of Mulder.
When I were a lad, my maths teacher insisted that equations were accompanied with a "given" list that explained all the detail of the data and functions applied to it. The emergence of quantum and relativistic math from their classical root currently seems to ignore this discipline of "full disclosure".
The "least action principle" of micro math can be identified as the "path of least resistance" of macro math, but sometimes these are incompatible because the micro math can easily be the inverse of the macro math without full disclosure of this. I find this confusing, to say the least.
I concur. MEP is a "brand" that seems to walk a median line between macro and micro theory.
This is my whole point. Micro math doesn't leave the 'paper trail' that most individuals need to follow for their acceptance of the math! Surely the accountability of micro math needs improvement?
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
I'm a great believer that all physical action can be formulated as least action principles like in lagrangian and hamiltoniam formulation of classical mechanics.
When I were a lad, my maths teacher insisted that equations were accompanied with a "given" list that explained all the detail of the data and functions applied to it. The emergence of quantum and relativistic math from their classical root currently seems to ignore this discipline of "full disclosure".
The "least action principle" of micro math can be identified as the "path of least resistance" of macro math, but sometimes these are incompatible because the micro math can easily be the inverse of the macro math without full disclosure of this. I find this confusing, to say the least.
quote:
As to whether "Entropy Production of Atmospheric Heat Transport" is such an action to be maximised will be an interesting area to follow as it may well have an impact on GCM formulation.
I concur. MEP is a "brand" that seems to walk a median line between macro and micro theory.
quote:
That's possible because when dealing with least action your're dealing with an integrated function and it is only when you differentiate it that the physics you are used to appears.
This is my whole point. Micro math doesn't leave the 'paper trail' that most individuals need to follow for their acceptance of the math! Surely the accountability of micro math needs improvement?
Best regards, suricat.
From :Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis? - A Guest Weblog by William DiPuccio
"IR radiation that is absorbed and re-emitted by these gases, particularly CO2, is said to be amplified by positive feedback from clouds and water vapor".
I am still working through this "paper". A question arises whenever I read the above statement about amplification, how in nature do you get something for nothing? Is it just a poor use of words?
Thanks
"IR radiation that is absorbed and re-emitted by these gases, particularly CO2, is said to be amplified by positive feedback from clouds and water vapor".
I am still working through this "paper". A question arises whenever I read the above statement about amplification, how in nature do you get something for nothing? Is it just a poor use of words?
Thanks
geoman
I think amplification is a reasonable word to use. It doesn't imply something for nothing but is another way of saying positive feedback I believe.
quote:A question arises whenever I read the above statement about amplification, how in nature do you get something for nothing? Is it just a poor use of words?
I think amplification is a reasonable word to use. It doesn't imply something for nothing but is another way of saying positive feedback I believe.
Suricat
The principle came out of classical and was then incorporated into Quantum and Relativity. I view it as an example of holism ie the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. You can see the parts but how they all link together requires integration ie an intuitive leap. It does make things easier once you have the Action function because you then deconstruct to get the answers to test against measurements.
In quantum there was another leap which was to define the probabalistic wavefunction and relate it's space and time derivatives to classical momentum and energy. Then Dirac relativised it and then least action was used for Quantum electro dynamics see this.
It works but Feynmann said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." so we're in good company.
quote:When I were a lad, my maths teacher insisted that equations were accompanied with a "given" list that explained all the detail of the data and functions applied to it. The emergence of quantum and relativistic math from their classical root currently seems to ignore this discipline of "full disclosure".
The principle came out of classical and was then incorporated into Quantum and Relativity. I view it as an example of holism ie the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. You can see the parts but how they all link together requires integration ie an intuitive leap. It does make things easier once you have the Action function because you then deconstruct to get the answers to test against measurements.
In quantum there was another leap which was to define the probabalistic wavefunction and relate it's space and time derivatives to classical momentum and energy. Then Dirac relativised it and then least action was used for Quantum electro dynamics see this.
It works but Feynmann said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." so we're in good company.
Thanks SoM.
However there is only one external heat source for this planet, and I can understand how there could transference of energy from one wavelength to another, eg visible spectrum into IR by absorption and emission. The positive feedback that is mentioned time and time again baffles me. How can the total radiation falling on the Earth's surface be greater than the Solar radiation that enters the top of the atmosphere? Where does the energy for this process come from? Is this what the IPCC call Radiative Forcing?
Many thanks.
However there is only one external heat source for this planet, and I can understand how there could transference of energy from one wavelength to another, eg visible spectrum into IR by absorption and emission. The positive feedback that is mentioned time and time again baffles me. How can the total radiation falling on the Earth's surface be greater than the Solar radiation that enters the top of the atmosphere? Where does the energy for this process come from? Is this what the IPCC call Radiative Forcing?
Many thanks.
Geoman
Assume energy from the sun stays constant, Infrared radiated from the earth doesn't all leave before some is 'captured' by a greenhouse gas and then some of that is thrown back at the earth so adds to the energy from the sun. Increase the greenhouse gas and more gets thrown back so it gets warmer (that's forcing). That causes water to evaporate which is also a greenhouse gas and that captures more outgoing IR and throws some more back (That's positive feedback). ie less IR leaves the top of the atmosphere until the surface warms and radiates even more. So no extra energy from the sun but more is recycled before finally leaving.
quote:The positive feedback that is mentioned time and time again baffles me. How can the total radiation falling on the Earth's surface be greater than the Solar radiation that enters the top of the atmosphere? Where does the energy for this process come from? Is this what the IPCC call Radiative Forcing?
Assume energy from the sun stays constant, Infrared radiated from the earth doesn't all leave before some is 'captured' by a greenhouse gas and then some of that is thrown back at the earth so adds to the energy from the sun. Increase the greenhouse gas and more gets thrown back so it gets warmer (that's forcing). That causes water to evaporate which is also a greenhouse gas and that captures more outgoing IR and throws some more back (That's positive feedback). ie less IR leaves the top of the atmosphere until the surface warms and radiates even more. So no extra energy from the sun but more is recycled before finally leaving.
Thanks SOM
I understand the above, but what is thrown back has come from the earth, indeed the result should be that a little less than 50% of the captured IR comes back to the earth. However without any additional heating the earth can not remain at the same temperature since it has just emitted energy as IR upwards. This exchange of energy up to be captured then transmitted down to the earth if left alone without any further addition to the system would result in cooling, not heating. I can not see this as amplification.
I must still be missing something. Please bear with me, I will get there in the end!
quote:some is 'captured' by a greenhouse gas and then some of that is thrown back at the earth so adds to the energy from the sun
I understand the above, but what is thrown back has come from the earth, indeed the result should be that a little less than 50% of the captured IR comes back to the earth. However without any additional heating the earth can not remain at the same temperature since it has just emitted energy as IR upwards. This exchange of energy up to be captured then transmitted down to the earth if left alone without any further addition to the system would result in cooling, not heating. I can not see this as amplification.
I must still be missing something. Please bear with me, I will get there in the end!
Geoman.
I also share your madness Geo. This is why I complain often about micro math (quantum stuff) and its often inverse function in comparison with macro math (classical stuff). There is no amplification, only attenuation!
The confusion lays in the different energy levels between the two wavelengths of insolation and OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation). In this analysis, high frequency (short wavelength) = high energy transmission, however, low frequency (long wavelength) = low energy transmission.
The absorption of Earth's atmosphere in the full EM (electromagnetic) spectrum displays the properties of a high pass filter. In other words, insolation gets to the surface quite easily (with the exclusion of UVa frequencies and above), though is attenuated where there is cloud and particulates, but IR is blocked after only a few metres of attenuation below the mid troposphere. Thus, energy is quite easily introduced to regions below the mid tropo, but after being degraded to longer wavelengths below this region is strongly attenuated by the local mass (atmosphere).
To my logic, this is nothing more than attenuation biasing. Hope my madness helps.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Thanks SOM
quote:
some is 'captured' by a greenhouse gas and then some of that is thrown back at the earth so adds to the energy from the sun
I also share your madness Geo. This is why I complain often about micro math (quantum stuff) and its often inverse function in comparison with macro math (classical stuff). There is no amplification, only attenuation!
The confusion lays in the different energy levels between the two wavelengths of insolation and OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation). In this analysis, high frequency (short wavelength) = high energy transmission, however, low frequency (long wavelength) = low energy transmission.
The absorption of Earth's atmosphere in the full EM (electromagnetic) spectrum displays the properties of a high pass filter. In other words, insolation gets to the surface quite easily (with the exclusion of UVa frequencies and above), though is attenuated where there is cloud and particulates, but IR is blocked after only a few metres of attenuation below the mid troposphere. Thus, energy is quite easily introduced to regions below the mid tropo, but after being degraded to longer wavelengths below this region is strongly attenuated by the local mass (atmosphere).
To my logic, this is nothing more than attenuation biasing. Hope my madness helps.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:Originally posted by suricat:
Geoman.quote:
Thanks SOM
quote:
some is 'captured' by a greenhouse gas and then some of that is thrown back at the earth so adds to the energy from the sun
I also share your madness Geo. This is why I complain often about micro math (quantum stuff) and its often inverse function in comparison with macro math (classical stuff). There is no amplification, only attenuation!
The confusion lays in the different energy levels between the two wavelengths of insolation and OLR (outgoing long-wave radiation). In this analysis, high frequency (short wavelength) = high energy transmission, however, low frequency (long wavelength) = low energy transmission.
The absorption of Earth's atmosphere in the full EM (electromagnetic) spectrum displays the properties of a high pass filter. In other words, insolation gets to the surface quite easily (with the exclusion of UVa frequencies and above), though is attenuated where there is cloud and particulates, but IR is blocked after only a few metres of attenuation below the mid troposphere. Thus, energy is quite easily introduced to regions below the mid tropo, but after being degraded to longer wavelengths below this region is strongly attenuated by the local mass (atmosphere).
To my logic, this is nothing more than attenuation biasing. Hope my madness helps.
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
I don't see how muf. Geoman has a problem with the logic used in climatology. All I did was try to explain this as classical science.
How do you see this and what's a "falsifaction" (you may want to edit that)?
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Like where you are going with this suricat, this could have legs for a falsifaction of the 'Radiation budgets part in AGW
I don't see how muf. Geoman has a problem with the logic used in climatology. All I did was try to explain this as classical science.
How do you see this and what's a "falsifaction" (you may want to edit that)?
Best regards, suricat.
Sorry suricat, I [mis]read you post as an underestimation on the IPCC part in the Earths ability to store the radiation received from the Sun.quote:Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.
I don't see how muf. Geoman has a problem with the logic used in climatology. All I did was try to explain this as classical science.
How do you see this and what's a "falsifaction" (you may want to edit that)?
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
Perhaps, but your input is still welcome. How do you see this?
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Sorry suricat, I [mis]read you post as an underestimation on the IPCC part in the Earths ability to store the radiation received from the Sun.
Perhaps, but your input is still welcome. How do you see this?
Best regards, suricat.
mufcdiver.
BTW, what I explained wasn't radiative budget. It was some of the action exerted by an Earth model.
Best regards, suricat.
BTW, what I explained wasn't radiative budget. It was some of the action exerted by an Earth model.
Best regards, suricat.
Son of Mulder, mufcdiver.
This looks like an excellent falsification of CO2's radiative forcing though!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...se-effect/#more-5058
Thoughts? The site comments are good too!
Best regards, suricat.
This looks like an excellent falsification of CO2's radiative forcing though!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...se-effect/#more-5058
Thoughts? The site comments are good too!
Best regards, suricat.
Suricat
Anoher excellent post. We discussed the Miskolczi stuff with Steve_M last year I seem to remember. He didn't like the Kirchoff bit from what I recall. I think the Venus stuff in the comments section is a red herring as it doesn't have oceans and rain to my knowledge as it's too close to the sun.
I shall be breaking out my old book on Entropy Theory to refresh my knowledge and to try and understand more of the details of Miskolczi's work....don't hold your breath.
As an aside, I found an interesting possible wager that by 2015 we should be able to determine whether AGW is real see this.
I'm not a betting man but there could be some egg on face come 2015 for some.
quote:This looks like an excellent falsification of CO2's radiative forcing though!
Anoher excellent post. We discussed the Miskolczi stuff with Steve_M last year I seem to remember. He didn't like the Kirchoff bit from what I recall. I think the Venus stuff in the comments section is a red herring as it doesn't have oceans and rain to my knowledge as it's too close to the sun.
I shall be breaking out my old book on Entropy Theory to refresh my knowledge and to try and understand more of the details of Miskolczi's work....don't hold your breath.
As an aside, I found an interesting possible wager that by 2015 we should be able to determine whether AGW is real see this.
I'm not a betting man but there could be some egg on face come 2015 for some.
Son of Mulder.
Yea! I thought it was pretty good too.
Yes and I'd have agreed with Steve for desert, rocks and concrete, but rain-forest is mushy and ocean is downright spongy on wide spectrum 'Kirchoff' albedo so I didn't feel confident to 'engage' in this when more than 70% of the planet is water and there're still a lot of forests. There are more degrees of freedom involved that include M's theory here, but as has already been said, he seems quite cavalier in attitude and quiet on communications (makes me think he has a good manager).
I think the Venus stuff is posted by astronomers looking for a universal climate template (or posters looking for full universality of the application).
I've read somewhere that Venus does have rain, but it doesn't achieve planet-fall and it isn't just water, it's sulphuric acid!
The magnetosphere of Venus is almost non existent in comparison with Earth, thus, its proximity to our sun has 'boiled off' lighter elements and compounds into Venus's high atmosphere to be 'blown away' by solar wind. In this respect I think mankind should revere Earth's collision with Thea, which established Earth's iron core and effective magnetosphere! Without this magnetosphere Earth would contain much less water.
I won't because they are probably outdated and anything I've googled so far is behind a money wall, but I did find this:
http://sdphca.ucsd.edu/pdf_files/PRL04434.pdf
Though I don't think it's appropriate!
Ha! Yes, on the UK Gov taxes as well (not to mention carbon certificates)! Though I believe that moderation of energy use is wise in any case.
Best regards, suricat.
quote:
Another excellent post. ((edit) corrected spelling [because this plays havoc with my spell check when I quote with typos])
Yea! I thought it was pretty good too.
quote:
We discussed the Miskolczi stuff with Steve_M last year I seem to remember. He didn't like the Kirchoff bit from what I recall.
Yes and I'd have agreed with Steve for desert, rocks and concrete, but rain-forest is mushy and ocean is downright spongy on wide spectrum 'Kirchoff' albedo so I didn't feel confident to 'engage' in this when more than 70% of the planet is water and there're still a lot of forests. There are more degrees of freedom involved that include M's theory here, but as has already been said, he seems quite cavalier in attitude and quiet on communications (makes me think he has a good manager).
quote:
I think the Venus stuff in the comments section is a red herring as it doesn't have oceans and rain to my knowledge as it's too close to the sun.
I think the Venus stuff is posted by astronomers looking for a universal climate template (or posters looking for full universality of the application).
I've read somewhere that Venus does have rain, but it doesn't achieve planet-fall and it isn't just water, it's sulphuric acid!
The magnetosphere of Venus is almost non existent in comparison with Earth, thus, its proximity to our sun has 'boiled off' lighter elements and compounds into Venus's high atmosphere to be 'blown away' by solar wind. In this respect I think mankind should revere Earth's collision with Thea, which established Earth's iron core and effective magnetosphere! Without this magnetosphere Earth would contain much less water.quote:
I shall be breaking out my old book on Entropy Theory to refresh my knowledge and to try and understand more of the details of Miskolczi's work....don't hold your breath.
I won't because they are probably outdated and anything I've googled so far is behind a money wall, but I did find this:
http://sdphca.ucsd.edu/pdf_files/PRL04434.pdf
Though I don't think it's appropriate!
quote:
As an aside, I found an interesting possible wager that by 2015 we should be able to determine whether AGW is real see this.
I'm not a betting man but there could be some egg on face come 2015 for some.
Ha! Yes, on the UK Gov taxes as well (not to mention carbon certificates)! Though I believe that moderation of energy use is wise in any case.
Best regards, suricat.
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.
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.
Suricat
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.
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.
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
Son of Mulder.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Suricat
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.
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.
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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Ok here we go again. I found this list of 10 AGW fallacies today .
Which of the 10 myths can be refuted.... where is Steve_M?
The factual actualities do not correspond to the fearmongering statements do they!
Greying Blondie.
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.
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.
Suricat, Well, well well.
Son of Mulder.
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.
Best regards, suricat.
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.
Best regards, suricat.
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).
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)
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).
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)
Suricat
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.
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.
Son of Mulder.
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"?
It's way past my bedtime so I've got to go now.
Best regards, suricat.
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"?
It's way past my bedtime so I've got to go now.
Best regards, suricat.
Suricat
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.
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.
Son of Mulder.
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.
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.
Suricat
I can't take seriously such an article... there is no mention of clouds as a moderating factor.
Whoever Tamino is, I've never seen an article under that moniker that covers all the bases.
quote: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.
I can't take seriously such an article... there is no mention of clouds as a moderating factor.
Whoever Tamino is, I've never seen an article under that moniker that covers all the bases.
quote:Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
I can't take seriously such an article... there is no mention of clouds as a moderating factor.
Whoever Tamino is, I've never seen an article under that moniker that covers all the bases.
This is how Urban legends are perpetuated SoM