Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 Next
Comments 90801 to 90850:
-
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred, The back-radiation in Trenberth's original diagram illustrates the gross flow of energy from atmosphere to surface. If you want to see the net energy flow (heat transfer), just subtract it from the gross flow of energy from surface to atmosphere: 356 - 333 = 23 W/m^2 net radiative energy transfer from surface to atmosphere. Where exactly do you see a violation of the 2nd law? Oh and the "correct" version you cited is derived by doing this exact type of math on Trenberth's results. It is the same information, not a corrected version. All they did was sum the gross inputs/outputs into the atmosphere. Also don't forget that Trenberth's diagram documents measured values, it is not a theoretical whimsy. If you doubt that back-radiation exists, go buy an infrared thermometer, point it at space on a clear night, and prove your point. -
dhogaza at 12:14 PM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Charlie A:An example of item #3 is the annotated version of Briffa and Osborne Figure 1 from Science 1999 article.
Let me see if if I get this right: they discard proxy data that doesn't calibrate with the modern temperature record and proxy data that doesn't calibrate with proxy data pre-1550. This seems like the right thing to do, indeed. D'oh. -
dana1981 at 12:06 PM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Susanne - it is temperature of the lower troposphere -
dana1981 at 12:04 PM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Arch - thanks, but we'd prefer if Muller began examining the facts more carefully, particularly when speaking to Congress. This is meant as motivation for Muller to start being more careful and accurate with his statements. -
arch stanton at 11:48 AM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
John, Dana, Thank you very much for your hard work in the area of separating the truth from….other. It would appear to me that this (Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline) is an ongoing series concerning Muller’s upcoming anticipated presentation before congress. I humbly suggest that you hold off on critiquing him until after he has exposed himself to congress. Don’t help him polish his presentation or find new ways to deceitfully misrepresent the science. Suggestion for the next person who watches the Berkeley video: Count the times Muller says he thinks climate change is a problem (I don’t want to watch it again). Thanks again, arch -
Berényi Péter at 11:37 AM on 29 March 2011Of Satellites and Air – A Primer on Tropospheric temperature measurement by Satellite
Re: Moderator Response:Nice omission, ignoring the effect of two major volcanic eruptions.[DB] Nice cherry-pick & ignoring the rest of the picture for the TLS
If lower stratospheric temperature anomaly is put against atmospheric CO2 concentration, regime changes due to eruptions can even more clearly be seen. And of course, that carbon dioxide itself has no effect on it at all.
There is apparently a strong short time warming effect in the stratosphere from volcanic eruptions followed by a mild cooling with a much longer relaxation time, possibly due to nanoparticles, which have extended stratospheric lifetime (because there's no rain there to wash them out).
Moderator Response:[DB] Perhaps you missed reading the entire unadulterated graphic straight from RSS, so here's the unvarnished piece in question, again:
FYI: The spiky bits were the eruptions in question. For those not in full possession of the straight information, volcanoes exert their transient cooling effects in the lower troposphere in opposite fashion in the stratosphere: temporarily warming it.
Due to the paucity (love that word) of water vapor in the stratosphere, the radiative imbalance of the Earth allows CO2 to freely exert it's GHG effects by cooling the stratosphere. As the clear RSS graphic I have shown twice now starkly delineates, the long-term stratospheric temperature trend is down, while the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is up, driving up the temperature of the lower troposphere and our oceans with it. A change in conditions for which mankind is responsible. No matter the dissembling of some.
-
arch stanton at 11:13 AM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Besides playing fast and loose with the facts, Muller’s presentation utilizes the Wattsoid technique of carefully crafting straw men from the worst of the MSM. -
chrisd3 at 11:02 AM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Unfortunately for the [--snip--], even Muller's own BEST study appears poised to confirm everyone else's temperature reconstructions:Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.
Kind of moots the whole hide the decline non-issue. http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/20/berkeley-temperature-study-results-global-warming/ -
adelady at 10:49 AM on 29 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
KeninOz@113. You must have a fly on the wall reporting to you from my household. We recently had a discussion about aluminium. If I had a smelter in Oz I'd be drawing lines on a map to see how easy it would be to connect to the geothermal projects. Getting in first with some investment tied to a guaranteed future supply with some price guarantees sounds like a very good idea. A bit of extra cash flow from claiming a share of the income from the power delivered to others from the lines installed to connect to the plant would be pretty tasty, too. But that's just me. -
Susanne at 10:41 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Apologies if this is answered somewhere, but what is TLT (response to comment #5)? Lower Troposphere Temperature seems most likely on the face of it, but why isn't that LTT? ThanksModerator Response: [muoncounter] See UAH satellite temperatures at wikipedia for additional explanation of these terms. -
scaddenp at 10:31 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Cant help noticing Gilles claims that SRES scenarios make no account of resource restriction, seem somewhat at odds with SRES itself. However, leaving that aside, suppose we drop all oil use now, dont replace oil with coal-created electric, so we only use half the coal by 2100, what the guess on CO2 ppm by 2050? Gilles doesnt believe in models so I doubt he cares, but frankly I still dont want to go there in less than 40 years. -
adelady at 10:28 AM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shoyemore#1 I think it's important for non-scientists like me to be Absolutely Clear In Our Minds about matters that are likely to be thrown at us in conversations and on-line. We can't fall back on something like a denialist mantra - just reciting and repeating a form of words. As it happens, we're all different. Some things turn on the lightbulb for me that leave others bemused or confused. Many people need, as any teacher knows, several exposures and different explanations before all the elements fall into place for everyone. At =that= point, further details or work or discussion are needed to get the student or interested person to understand well enough to be able to describe or discuss the issue or the phenomenon in their own words. It's not enough to get it. You have to 'own' it in a form suitable to share. So I'd disagree. It might be old hat or boring to someone who's been involved for a long time. For novices or those who've only just begun to grasp why there's a fuss about a particular matter, a new reference or an explanation in a new form of words might be just the ticket. -
Charlie A at 10:26 AM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
For those trying to keep the various issues separate, there seems to be at least three. 1. Splicing instrumental data onto the end of tree ring based temperature reconstructions for the WMO cover. 2. Deleting post 1960 data, both WMO cover and peer reviewed papers. 3. Deleting the pre-1550 data in Briffa and Osborne 1999 article in Science and other peer reviewed articles. There may be others, but those seem to be the main ones. An example of item #3 is the annotated version of Briffa and Osborne Figure 1 from Science 1999 article.
For more discussion, see Hide the Decline, Science magazine version
-
Gilles at 10:24 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
SNRratio : could you please be more precise of what you're referring to as "different data or methodologies ending up with the same probability distribution " - because I don't see what you mean. Marcus#29 : "even though you admit you're not a scientists" at least a definite piece of evidence that you don't listen to what I'm saying or don't understand it - I never admitted that I wasn't a scientist, for the very good reason that I am one, and I'd have no interest in saying the opposite. Is my english really that poor ? -
Gilles at 10:15 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
les : what is wrong in 111 ? do the set of SRES scenarios encompass all likely possibilities for the future, or not ? I mean of course it would be much unlikely that a particular scenario corresponds exactly to reality : but you could expect that it will be inside the whole set, so let's formulate like this : what is the likelihood that the real history of production of FF in the XXIth lies outside the convex polyhedra built by the set of all SRES scenario for all (oil, gas, coal) production numbers, in order of magnitude ? 50 % ? 10 % ? 1 % ? less ? 114 Mucounter : I don't want to discuss here the plausibility of IEA scenarios - I just wanted to notice that they consider that oil is needed - notwithstanding the well known fact that we could so easily replace it, like all FF - isn't it somewhat strange that they seem to ignore such an obvious possibility ? -
NewYorkJ at 10:06 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Hard to qualify the McLean prediction. If he's referring to any of the surface records, it's clearly implausible. If he's referring to satellite LT records, where is he getting 1956 data from? If he's referring just to the ENSO region (becoming quite a stretch here), he's claiming that models indicate la Nina will last "well into autumn" and last until June of the following year, which does not match mean model predictions as others have pointed out. But ENSO values were around record levels recently, which brings up a revealing claim: "Since 1958 there's been a 30% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and if this had a major influence on temperature we'd expect to see clear evidence of the temperature continually rising above what the SOI suggests it should be, but this is not happening". So if McLean's ENSO hypothesis is correct, we will indeed see global average temperature drop to near 1956 levels. To give him credit, it's nice to see a contrarian make a falsifiable prediction, one that is a logical extension of his ridiculous hypothesis. I have to give him credit for that. What are we left with? A serious typo? Maybe by "1956" he meant "2008"? -
Peter Hogarth at 10:06 AM on 29 March 2011Weather vs Climate
johnd at 08:11 AM on 29 March, 2011 If you are agreeing with the authors that GHG forcing is driving longer term global trends in SST and SAT, but shorter term variations in (primarily) tropical SST may in turn be driving corresponding interannual variations in SAT (such as the well known connection between ENSO or tropical SST variations and global SAT variations), then I have misunderstood your point in the final section of 116 and duly apologise. If I rephrase to clarify: If the time frame is long, it is necessary to include GHGs to get correlation. -
dana1981 at 09:49 AM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
And for the record, as a Berkeley alumn myself, it really irritates me how fast and loose Muller is playing with the facts, to put it nicely. He's not representing the university well at all. -
dana1981 at 09:48 AM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
Shoyemore - the problem is that Muller seems to be trying to position himself as some sort of climate expert, and yet his lecture is absolutely riddled with fundamental mistakes and misinformation. So we think it's important, if he's going to become this go-to climate expert (he's already been invited to testify before Congress on the subject on Thursday), someone needs to keep him honest and get the facts right, even if the subject is one which has been re-treaded over and over. It's just all the worse that "experts" are still getting these facts wrong. -
meanders at 09:40 AM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
And did you notice how Prof. Muller [--snip--] the WMO graph by adding the legend 'Tree Ring Data'? Of course it's not a graph of 'tree ring data', it's a temperature reconstruction. Not to mention that he chose to use the relatively obscure WMO graph rather than the clearer and more widely publicized IPCC graph. To me the most ironic part of the (mis)quote was his (non)reference to "... Mike's Nature trick...", as in, the peer-reviewed journal Nature. To Prof. Muller, though, "the justification would not have survived peer review in any publication that I'm willing to publish in." Hm. (This section of the lecture is at 34:05 in the link in the main post.) -
shoyemore at 09:13 AM on 29 March 2011Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
I have made this comment before, but I wonder if this continual defence of Phil Jones and Michael Mann is doing more harm than good? The public know there have been several inquiries and no heads have rolled. I know deniers like McIntyre are still harping on about the e-mails (and on and on and on ....) but does it really help to issue lengthy rejoinders every time the subject comes up? It sounds defensive and plays into the belief that there is something questionable about the content of the mails. Would it be better just to say "Case Closed!" or simply shout "Boring!" and move on? PS No problem with the content of the post, which is excellent as usual. Well done, Johh, but I am concerned about the wider point above. -
Ken in Oz at 09:13 AM on 29 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
My previous comment @112 may have crossed the line into political commentary but I think the real point is that without the political will to act it's a hypothetical proposal. Would it work to reduce emissions if taken up? Surely it would but energy costs, dependent on reliability of supply, would be highly variable and clearly higher than fossil fuels without a carbon price (which is being strongly opposed); current style of energy intensive industry practices would need to change (isn't that the point?). A making hay (or aluminium) when the sun shines approach and/or industry taking responsibility for it's own uninteruptable power storage would probably be inherent in a renewables only approach. It could be very expensive but still not as expensive as failure to act will be. Large scale storage remains an area I think is vital to acceptance, investment and deep deployment of solar and wind that can replace fossil fuels (rather than be as well as FF's), yet has not received an appropriate level of R&D attention. -
Michael.M at 08:51 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
At EIKE "European Intitute for C(K)limate and Energy", a letterbox-Institute and the german spin-off of CFACT, they were offered a little bet after they published the McLean-Paper. The author declined with the message: "Wer wettet, will betrügen!" "Who bets, wants to betray". Very neat. A nonsenical claim and when challenged very cold feet. -
Ed Davies at 08:19 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Just in case, I've saved a copy of that complete page (including images, etc) in a tar.gz file and put a sha256 sum of it on my Wikipedia user page to timestamp it (even if I delete it it'll be available in the history). It's not that I'm not an entirely trusting person or anything... -
johnd at 08:11 AM on 29 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Peter Hogarth at 07:07 AM, I think you will find that one of your excerpts from the paper is the same as one I offered earlier. I find that one has to be careful to understand whether at various points they are examining what influences are being manifested in the physical world or in the modeling. I am not sure what the points are of your last two comments. Can you elaborate. -
The Day After McLean
Moderator/DB @ 22 - The appropriate HTML code for limited image sizes has vanished from the Comments Policy page, where I have frequently copied it before. Might this be restored? I found it quite helpful. The last time I wanted to post a limited size image I had to go to a previously posted image on an old thread and "view source" to remind myself of the syntax. Not terribly "user friendly". In that regard, it might also be worth showing the hypertext for italics, bold, and underlines on that page, if the moderators consider those helpful for the general posting.Moderator Response: (DB) Sure, KR, I'll take care of it. Edit: Done. -
scaddenp at 07:48 AM on 29 March 2011Models are unreliable
" then why has no skeptic produced a model with a set of parameters that can explain the climate of the 20th century without CO2 radiative forcing? Has this been done?" This is a point that needs some further emphasis. It would be a telling blow to climate science if you could fiddle with the parameterization so as to reproduce historical temperature records without a CO2 influence. Considering the rubbish that opponents do fund, wouldnt attempting this be a better bet than dubious disinformation? AR4 model will run on a modern desktop. Even a TAR model would be devastating, so not that difficult if parameterization is so tunable. Petroleum companies certainly have the resources - hey they could contract my institute to attempt it! That would be fun. Back in real world, this has happened because it cant. The tuning argument is from those that dont understand the process. Its FUD created to rationalize debelief in a message that they dont want to hear. -
damorbel at 07:27 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #870 Fred Staples you wrote:- 1/"It is much easier to say what heat is not, than what it is." - Heat is what is measured by temperature, don't you think? 2/"Back Radiation : 333 Watts per square meter, absorbed by surface (it says)....Quite absurd" - Fred, what I like about 'Back Radiation' is that it goes straight into the surface, nothing is reflected, even though most of the surface is water with a refractive index of 1,33; I'm sure Fresnel is weeping in his grave! -
les at 07:25 AM on 29 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Looks like Obama is putting physics to rights... "As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the Federal government can and should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentally-responsible products and technologies," said President Obama. -
muoncounter at 07:24 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
johnd #25: "my money is on JAMSTEC" I note you did not specify a temperature for 2011 in your reply, so where the pass line is in this craps game isn't clear. I guess it's always prudent to save some room for a late-innings goalpost shift. "there are some who can produce work that is accurate, but many who can't." Is your standard here that 'accurate' means 'agrees with you' and 'inaccurate' means 'warming'? "The early bird might be the party pooper, but they do get the worms." If by early, you mean predictions made in say, 1988?Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed date. -
johnd at 07:22 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Just to add to the mish-mash of ENSO predictions, here is a reliable prediction going forward with the prediction made at this time last year.
-
Albatross at 07:20 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
JohnD, Let us cut to the chase. This post is about McLean's dubious forecast for global SATs in 2011. 1) How much are you willing to wager that McLean's forecast is going to be correct? You said earlier that "my money is on JAMSTEC, as it has been for some years now". That forecast is largely irrelevant, but how about you put money where your mouth is instead of floating red herrings? 2) Or do agree with that McLean's forecast is hogwash? -
scaddenp at 07:10 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
#869. Stunning. Please show us your sums for calculating the average surface temperature and lapse rate for say earth, venus, mars by this incredible piece of physics. I am really interested. After all this can be done by normal climate science. Any alternative explanation that you think avoids such "errors as violation of 2nd Law" has to do so as well. Physci claim he/she could though we are still waiting. -
Peter Hogarth at 07:07 AM on 29 March 2011Weather vs Climate
johnd, you seem to have either slightly misinterpreted the Luo paper or deliberately quoted out of context. It proposes that short term enhanced land surface temperatures are driven mainly by Sea Surface temperatures (SST) and heat exchange, rather than directly by GHG and radiative effects. They show that short term (seasonal to interannual) variations in Surface Air Temperature (SAT) is driven mainly by SST (the topic of their paper). They also accept SST is a longer time constant function due to longer term natural variations superimposed on a warming trend due to radiative forcing and GHG. If true, this implies better predictability of regional SAT at periods of over a year by using SST conditions to initialise the models. Some quotes from the paper: “We note that the SST warming itself may be driven by both the increasing GHGs forcing and slowly-varying natural processes (Solomon et al. 2007). The SST change was found to play a dominant role in determining the land/ocean warming contrast probably via complex hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections”. “Considering large uncertainties in local climate response to GHGs forcing but relatively robust response of the global mean temperature (Solomon et al. 2007), here we examine potential influence of the trend of global mean surface temperature on climate predictability at lead times of up to 2 years”. “The warming trend in the tropics, partly due to the increasing GHGs forcing (Liniger et al. 2007), is about two-thirds of the global warming (Fig. 7b).” And the last sentence of their conclusion: “The intrinsic predictability of global warming, which is arisen from the long memory of ocean warming, provides hope for enhanced prediction of climate anomalies (interannual variations + warming trend) under the increasing GHGs forcing” -
johnd at 07:07 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
muoncounter at 06:32 AM, my money is on JAMSTEC, as it has been for some years now. Regarding computer modeling, the operative word is "can". As I often note,all to frequently, there are some who can produce work that is accurate, but many who can't. It depends on how advanced they are in being able to identify what is relevant and what is not. It has been noted elsewhere of the improvements that have occurred in weather forecasts over the decades. As in every endeavor, all players are not moving in lockstep, rather they are moving up a ladder, and the rung the majority occupy now was occupied by someone else a decade ago, and so it will be a decade from now for the rung that someone else now occupies. That reality applies to all fields. The early bird might be the party pooper, but they do get the worms. -
Paul D at 07:02 AM on 29 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Artificial leaf: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110327191042.htm Interesting idea, produces hydrogen. It isn't clear how efficient it is in comparison to other methods of producing hydrogen. -
Fred Staples at 07:00 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Heat. It is much easier to say what heat is not, than what it is. It is not energy, although it is measured in the same units. Because it is not energy, it cannot be trapped, stored or transferred. The internal energy of a system can be defined and measured; it is a property of a system. Heat is not a property of a system. There is no such thing as the internal heat of a system. Most of the confusion in climate science explanations arises because heat and energy are treated as synonymous. Unfortunately, it is conventional to speak of heat transfer when we mean net energy transfer. It works if we keep the definition in mind. Heat is a process. It is energy in transit. It is the net energy transferred across the boundary of system due to a difference in temperature between a system and the surroundings of a system. The idea of net energy transfer is crucial. At the microscopic level, energy can travel in both directions between a higher and a lower temperature. The rate of transfer will be greater from the higher to the lower, so the net transfer will be from the higher to the lower and, risking confusion, we can call this heat transfer. By definition, therefore, it is uni-directional. Spontaneously, heat transfer will cool the higher temperature system and warm the lower temperature. Eventually, all systems in thermal contact will come to equilibrium at the same temperature. This does not necessarily stop energy transfer. It does stop heat transfer. That is why the “back-radiation” explanations of AGW are misleading at best, or wrong. All the explanations which claim direct warming of the surface from back-radiation violate the second law. Heat, net energy, travels only from a source to a sink; from a higher to a lower temperature. This is the only way that raw energy can actually do anything, either generate useful work or warm something. Heat (useful energy) cannot go backwards. For global warming, the first source is the sun, and the earth is the sink. For the atmosphere, the earth is the source and the atmosphere (at a lower temperature) is the sink. Finally, the atmosphere becomes a source and space (close to absolute zero) is the ultimate sink. Quite simple, indeed obvious. No-one would contradict that, surely. Have a look at the version of the Trenberth diagram at post 50, which is quoted all over the blogosphere: Outgoing Radiation: 396 watts per square meter Direct to Space : 40 watts per square meter Back Radiation : 333 Watts per square meter, absorbed by surface (it says) Quite absurd. The correct version is at page 6 of A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation by Grant W Petty. The net outgoing radiation is 21% of the solar energy entering the atmosphere, or 71.7 watts per square meter. This is, of course, a surface cooling effect, alongside conduction and convection (23.9 watts per square meter), and evaporation (78.5 watts per square meter). All these combined are atmospheric warming effects. So have climate scientists made an elementary mistake, as this thread suggests in the introduction? G and T are undoubtedly correct as far as most journalistic, political, and blogosphere posts are concerned. However, G and T did not address the interaction between outgoing radiation to space and the lapse rate, which is the favoured explanation of some of the climate scientists and the RC blog. Before we try to decide, we will have to examine the lapse rate. -
Albatross at 06:58 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Michael @18, The MetOffice agree with Hansen. They released their official forecast for 2011 in December 2010: "Although La Niña has stabilised, it is still expected to affect global temperature through the coming year. This effect is small compared to the total accrued global warming to date, but it does mean that 2011 is unlikely to be a record year according to the Met Office prediction based on the three main datasets. Nevertheless an anomaly of 0.44 °C is still likely — with the range very likely to be between 0.28 °C and 0.60 °C. The middle of this range would place 2011 among the top 10 warmest years on the record." Also of note, is the UK Met Office's statement that: "Over the years 2000–2010 that the Met Office has issued forecasts of annual global temperature, the mean value of the forecast error is 0.06 °C." Impressive indeed. Now what are McLean's margins of error when predicting global SATs? -
dana1981 at 06:55 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Yes, the strength and length of the La Nina cycle is really irrelevant here. The point is that McLean is predicting a 1-year temperature drop nearly 3 times larger than any previous 1-year temperature change over the past 130 years. ENSO simply isn't capable of causing a 0.8°C cooling in 1 year. In fact, it took anthropogenic CO2 emissions nearly 100 years to cause a temperature change that large. The prediction is flat-out nuts. -
From Peru at 06:53 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
To moderator: Sorry for the huge sizes of the images, I don't know how to rescale them.Moderator Response:[DB] If you use this as an example, replacing 1 with the left arrow tag and 2 with the right arrow tag & put your desired URL between the double quotes, you will get a clickable, linked, appropriately-sized inline picture in your comment:
1a href=""21img width="450" src=""21/a2
-
From Peru at 06:52 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
The prospects for a cool 2011 are melting away. The La Niña is dying: First, see the Australian BOM graphs on NINO indices: ENSO monitoring graphs NINO 3.4 has warmed to -0.47. This is already NEUTRAL territory, as defined by the range -0.5ºC > NINO3.4 < 0.5ºC. The other NINO indices has also warmed, they are currently at: NINO4: -0.34ºC NINO3: -0.32ºC NINO2: +0.26ºC NINO1: +0.24ºC All neutral. The subsurface temperatures are even more indicative. There is a huge volume of anomausly warm water below the weakly cool surface layer, and is spreading eastwards:
The Equatorial Upper-Ocean Heat Anomalies are now positive (warm). The warm anomaly is in average +0.4ºC:
It seems that is very likely that will will NOT just return to ENSO-neytral condictions in a few months (BOM show neutrality already), but we will enter an El Niño. Seeing the huge volume of subsurface warm water, I suspect that the El Niño will be strong.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed image sizes. -
damorbel at 06:50 AM on 29 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #865 RW1 you wrote:- 1/"But the temperature is about 288K - not 279K. How is that so?" Apart from the fact that this 'average' temperature is not accurately known (NASA have a webpage somewhere with +-5K on some median temperature) - all gravitatioally bound concentrations of gas have a temeperature that rises towards the (gravitational) centre, in a star it reaches somewhere between 10^10K and 10^15K, hot enough for thermonuclear ignition. Even the paltry 85km of the Earth's atmosphere shows a temperature profile due to the planet's gravity. It is interesting to note that this gravitational temperature increase is a feature of very deep mines where, in addition to the increasing heat from the Earth (which is very variable with depth) a mine of 3km depth can have additional temperature rise of between 10 and 18K purely due to the higher air pressure at that depth. 2/"Do you agree that all of the Sun's emitted energy is radiative?" - Both electromagnetic and particulate radiation. 3/"Do you agree that the Sun's emitted energy is transparent through space to the Earth?" - I think the nswer is yes. 4/"Do you agree that the Sun's emitted energy is transparent through space to the Earth?" - No. the Earth's atmosphere absorbs all UV <0.3 microns, about 10% of the Sun's output and I believe about 30% in the infrared. 5/"Do you agree that space is colder than than the Earth's atmosphere?" - Space does not have a temperature. Different locations get heat from stars in varying amounts. At night the sky without the Sun has an apparent temperature of 2.7K, this is called the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB for short. 6/"Do you agree that the atmosphere of the Earth is colder than the surface of the Earth?" - Over a given location - most of the time (except in the stratosphere). (Havn't I seen this stuff before somewhere?) 7/"Do you agree that the atmosphere of the Earth is colder than the surface of the Earth?" - No. 8/"Do you agree that the emitted 390 W/m^2 is a result of the Earth's surface temperature and nothing else?" - See 7. 9/"Do you agree that the emitted radiation from the surface is mostly NOT transparent to the atmosphere?" - See above. 10/"Do you agree that a lot of the surface emitted radiation is absorbed and re-emitted isotropically by the atmosphere?" - Yes Now be so good as to answer my question:- What % of the heat tranferred to the atmosphere from the ground by radiation:- 14%?......40%?.......90%? (You can make your own suggestion if you like.) -
dana1981 at 06:50 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
actually thoughtfull - I think you've nailed the point that the up-front costs (i.e. buying an EV or solar panels) are significant, but in the long run the net cost is small and we even save money. The problem is convincing people to make the up-front investments, especially in today's political climate where politicians are trying to cut funding from as many programs as possible. Of course that's where the carbon price comes in. But then they say you're taxing people and businesses, and we're also very anti-tax right now. So ultimately you have to put it all together in a climate bill and sell it to the American people. Which Democrats did successfully in 2009 - a majority of Americans supported the legislation, and it passed the House, but the Senate Republican minority blocked it. And then we elected a bunch more of them in 2010. Americans support this legislation, but consider it a very low priority. So ultimately it boils down to the fact that we need to convince Americans not only that climate legislation is a good idea, but that they need to make it a high priority, and make politicians who block it pay at the ballot box. -
Albatross at 06:48 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
muoncounter @17, Sweet :) -
Albatross at 06:47 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
I do not understand why "skeptics" posting here insist on going on about the current ENSO. Even if the current event maintains its current intensity (which is doubtful) and persists into the Boreal winter, annual global SATs will be warmer than those in 1956 or 1985, on that I am willing to wager money. "Skeptics" how much are you willing to wager on McLean? Are you really that faithful? As Dana has noted: "According to NASA GISS, the average land-ocean global temperature anomaly in 1956 was –0.17°C. Matching 1956 would require a 0.8°C drop from the average 2010 temperature. It's true that the current La Niña cycle is a strong one, but it's not that strong!" McLean's prediction was bust the very moment he uttered it. What is telling is that "skeptics" here (and elsewhere) continue to refuse to be true skeptics and call McLean et al. on their utter nonsense or to distance themselves from his BS. Instead they choose to use it as an opportunity to float more red herrings and obfuscate. And FWIW, and again it is not really relevant given the known maximum perturbation that La Ninas have on global SATs, IRI (who use multiple sources of dynamical and statistical guidance) are predicting ENSO neutral conditions by early summer, perhaps sooner.
-
michael sweet at 06:40 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
It is appropriate to compare Dr. Hansens predictions to see who does better. In this article (on page 5) Dr. Hansen predicts that 2011 will be warm but not record setting. He says that if the El Nina shuts off that 2012 might be a record hot year. Perhaps you could add Hansens prediction to figure one so people can see who does better. -
muoncounter at 06:32 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
johnd#14: "There has been no reason given yet that it cannot repeat the 3 consecutive La-Nina years" I take this to mean your money's on McLean? If not, how low do you think the global temperature anomaly for the year will go? "JAMSTEC are one of the most reliable sources for these predictions" Sooo, the computer models they use for their predictions are reliable? But that would mean ... climate modeling can be accurate! -
Rob Painting at 06:07 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
Muoncounter @ 13 - "How much will you bet that this prediction will be carefully buried by the denialosphere by then?" And then carefully exhumed by Sks authors and compared to actual observations. Figure 1 in the post is a pearler!. -
Alex C at 05:57 AM on 29 March 2011The Day After McLean
CBD brings up a good point with the fact that the satellite data only goes back to 1979. If McLean is using the UAH temperature data, then he is cherry picking. Why not use the GISS data or NCDC data or HadCRUT data, or whatever data set he used to base the 1956 year fantasy off of, as the data for current values? Is it because, conveniently for him, satellite data responds more dramatically to ENSO than ground-based measurements? I also agree that since McLean says "1956 or even earlier," his intent was not "just barely above 1956" but "since that year." He's talking temporally, so the temperature should be even lower than 1956 to account for the 1964 dip. -
actually thoughtful at 05:53 AM on 29 March 2011Dana's 50th: Why I Blog
The conversation has turned to one of my favorite points regarding climate change. The actual cost is likely to be zero, or even negative (that is profitable). Many people are paying ~100/fillup of their vehicle. Switch that to a Nissan Leaf and 8 solar panels: price per fillup is now zero. Payback time for the solar panels and the extra cost of the electric car? About 5 years Many people pay 600-1800/year for heating. Switch that to solar thermal and pay 150-500. Payback time - less than 10 years for propane and electric, 10-14 for natural gas. And on and on and so it goes. The strongest known force in the universe is an American's desire to avoid a "tax" - so put a tax on carbon and watch how fast the offending item (carbon) is not used. Now some caveats - the Leaf only goes 100 miles per charge, some of the carbon tax avoidance will come out as burning trees in inefficient wood stoves. American cities would be smart to ban wood stoves now, so as not to look the bad guy when we finally get a carbon tax. Now factor in the growth to the economy in switching over, and increased financial stability of all participants (the utility can't turn your heat off when it is solar powered and contained on your property). As a society, we will be dramatically and strictly better off.
Prev 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 Next
