Recent Comments

Prev  444  445  446  447  448  449  450  451  452  453  454  455  456  457  458  459  Next

Comments 22551 to 22600:

22551. sauerj at 20:06 PM on 29 October 2016
       Climate change could push risk of ‘megadrought’ to 99% in American southwest
       

       Nice comment. Curious, could you explain a bit more the concept of "ringing". That is one I haven't heard before. Thanks!

22552. dred at 13:36 PM on 29 October 2016
       So what's really happening in Antarctica?
       

       How the ice age commencing ~3 million years ago may have been caused (several angles follow:)

       a)  There are different hypothesis that have been tested in global cooling model simulation to check their potential importance in the glacial inception of the Northern Hemisphere. One of the major hypotheses is the closure of both the Indonesian (~3-5 Ma, Cane and Molnar, 2001) and Panama seaways (~3 Ma, Bartoli et al, 2005). The closure of the Panama isthmus, which began 13 Ma, was very slow. When the connection between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans closed, it intensified the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic intensifying the heat transport from the equator toward high latitudes. Such hypotheses tested in GCMs circulation show that, even if a larger heat export could bring more precipitation and lead to the built of an ice sheet, the difference in ice sheet volume accumulated between an “open” or “closed” isthmus is small (Klocker et al., 2005; Lunt et al., 2008). On the contrary, the closure of the Indonesian seaway stopped the warm waters from the South Pacific from flowing into the Indian Ocean. This increased the amount of the North Pacific cold waters involved in circulation into the Indian Ocean and thus reduced the heat transport from the tropics toward the higher latitudes, finally triggering a global cooling (Cane and Molnar, 2001). http://www.climatescienceandpolicy.eu/2011/01/the-three-million-years-ago-dilemma-the-beginning-of-the-ice-ages/

       ……………………………………..

       b) The collision of India and southern Asia began between 50 million and 40 million years ago, during the Eocene Epoch, and continues today. The collision produced two main geologic results. First, it began to block the westward-flowing Tethys seaway near the Equator, a process completed with the junction of Africa and Asia near present-day Iran roughly 16 million to 14 million years ago. Second, the creation of the Himalayas and the Plateau of Tibet, which resulted from the collision, altered global climates by changing patterns of weathering (and thus the transfer rate of carbon to the atmosphere) as well as wind circulation. India’s collision with southern Asia also altered patterns of oceanic productivity by increasing erosion and thus nutrient runoff to the Indian Ocean.

       Principal Cenozoic faunal migration routes and barriers.
       Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
       The present-day Mediterranean Sea is a geologically recent descendant of a portion of the Tethys seaway. About six million years ago, during the Messinian Age, the western remnant of the Tethys seaway was subject to a brief paroxysm, known as the Messinian salinity crisis, that lasted approximately 270,000 years and saw the entire basin virtually isolated from the wrld ocean. The basin experienced severe desiccation and the precipitation of vast deposits of evaporites (such as salt and gypsum) up to several kilometres in thickness. The Atlantic Ocean subsequently refilled the basin from the west at the beginning of the Zanclean Age. Geologic evidence suggests that water rushing through a channel cut near Gibraltar filled some 90 percent of the Mediterranean Sea within two years. Some scientists contend that sea levels may have risen 10 metres (about 33 feet) per day within the basin during the period of peak flow. The Mediterranean basin has undergone significant geologic evolution during the most recent five million years. About one million years ago this part of the Tethys was transformed into the Mediterranean Sea by the elevation of the Gibraltar sill. Consequently, the Mediterranean basin became isolated from deep oceanic bottom waters, and the present-day pattern of circulation developed. …

       The Bering land bridge which united Siberia and Alaska served as a second connection between Eurasia and North America. This link seems to have been breached by the Arctic and Pacific oceans between five and seven million years ago, allowing the transit of cold water currents and marine faunas between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The Atlantic and Pacific were also linked by the Central American seaway in the area of present-day Costa Rica and Panama. This seaway, extant since the first half of the Cretaceous Period, prevented the interchange of terrestrial fauna between North and South America; however, for a brief interlude during the Paleocene, a land connection may have existed between North and South America across the volcanic archipelago of the Greater Antillean arc, and some scholars have argued that land bridges between the two continents may have existed for short periods during the Late Cretaceous and again during the late Miocene. The seaway was closed by the elevation of the Central American isthmus between 5.5 million and 3 million years ago. This event had two significant geologic results. … Second, the emergence of the isthmus deflected the westward-flowing North Equatorial Current toward the north and enhanced the northward-flowing Gulf Stream. This newly invigorated current carried warm, salty waters into high northern latitudes, which contributed to increased rates of evaporation over the oceans and greater precipitation over the region of eastern Canada and Greenland. This pattern eventually led to the formation and development of the polar ice cap in the Northern Hemisphere between 4 million and 2.5 million years ago. https://www.britannica.com/science/Tertiary-Period

       ………………………………………………..

       More angles:  ("Ice age" is differentiated from "periodic glaciation".) 

       c) For several million years the Earth has experienced regular galciations followed by shorter warmer periods roughly every 100,000 years. What causes this seemingly regular climate oscillation ? The textbook answer is that they are initiated by changes in the Earth’s orbit and axis tilt called Milankowitch cycles and are then enhanced by a CO2 feedback effect. However the details are complex. For the last 1 million years Ice ages have occurred more or less every 100,000 years which corresponds to the change in eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun. Looking at the detailed effects on changes to incident solar radiation we find:

       1. A 41,000 year variation in the tilt of the Earth’s axis to the sun. This effects the severity of winters and summers during the year.

       2. A 23,000 year precession of the same axis of rotation which changes the season within the year. 13,000 years ago Winter in the Northern hemispheer was in June.

       3. A 100,000 year oscillaton in the elipticity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun. Most important is the change in elipticity of the Earth’s orbit which changes the distance from the Sun during the year. So when winter in the northern hemisheper corresponds to a large distince from the sun we can expect more severe cold winters. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2732

       …….

       d)

       antarctica: 40 million years ago to present
       
       How Antarctica got its ice sheets–In the continual movement of Earth’s tectonic plates, Antarctica was severed from the southern tip of South America about 34 million years ago, creating the Drake Passage. Antarctica became completely surrounded by ocean. The powerful Antarctic Circumpolar Current began to sweep around the continent, isolating Antarctica from the warmth of the global oceans and provoking large-scale cooling. Illustration by Jack Cook. http://www.whoi.edu/services/communications/oceanusmag.050826/v42n2/haug-en1.html
       …………

       e) 3-22-04 How could the Gulf Stream–which transports not only moisture but also heat to the North Atlantic–lead to major Northern Hemisphere cooling and the formation of ice?
       Neal Driscoll and Gerald Haug proposed one solution. They postulated that moisture carried northward by the Gulf Stream was transported by prevailing westerly winds to Eurasia. It fell as rain or snow, eventually depositing more fresh water into the Arctic Ocean–either directly, or via the great Siberian rivers that empty into the Arctic Ocean.

       The added fresh water would have facilitated the formation of sea ice, which would reflect sunlight and heat back into space. It would also act as a barrier blocking heat stored in the ocean from escaping to the atmosphere above the Arctic. Both these phenomena would further cool the high latitudes. In addition, Arctic waters flowing back into the North Atlantic would have become less cold and salty–short-circuiting the efficiency of the Ocean Conveyor belt as a global heat pump to North Atlantic regions.

       These preconditions–moisture plus an Arctic nucleus for cooling–would have made the climate system highly susceptible to ice sheet growth. Even modest changes in the global environment would have been sufficient to tip the scales and lead to the onset of major Northern Hemisphere glaciation.

       Just such a change occurred between 3.1 and 2.5 million years ago, as Earth’s axis fluctuated so that the planet’s tilt toward the sun was less than today’s angle of 23.45 degrees. Less tilt to the Earth would have reduced the amount and intensity of solar radiation hitting the Northern Hemisphere, leading to colder summers and less melting of winter snows.

       The onset of Northern Hemisphere glaciation also affected the Subarctic Pacific. It led to the formation about 2.7 million years ago of a freshwater lid at the surface of the ocean, called a halocline. This Arctic halocline would have created a barrier to upwelling, which blocked deep carbon-dioxide-rich deep waters from rising to the surface. The “leak” of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was stemmed, further cooling the planet.

       Many other ocean-atmosphere feedback mechanisms, resulting from the opening and closing of oceanic gateways, remain imperfectly understood. http://www.whoi.edu/services/communications/oceanusmag.050826/v42n2/haug.html

       ………..

       f) Their case rests on temporal correlations between tectonic and climatic phenomena. Particularly impressive is the correlation at 50 Ma of the Indian–Asian collision and the consequent shutdown of what they call the “carbon factory” during the climate optimum, which is immediately followed by the temperature decline of the Middle and Late Eocene and the transition to a glacial state. Correlations do not necessarily imply causation, but they are strongly suggestive when linked in the manner that Kent and Muttoni (1) do. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/42/16061.full

       ………..

       g)

       III. The mechanisms behind sudden climate transitions.

       It is still unclear how the climate on a regional or even global scale can change as rapidly as present evidence suggests. It appears that the climate system is more delicately balanced than had previously been thought, linked by a cascade of powerful mechanisms that can amplify a small initial change into a much larger shift in temperature and aridity (e.g., Rind and Overpeck, 1993). At present, the thinking of climatologists tends to emphasize several key components:

       III.1. North Atlantic circulation as a trigger or an amplifier in rapid climate changes.

       The circulation of the north Atlantic Ocean probably plays a major role in either triggering or amplifying rapid climate changes in the historical and recent geological record (Broecker 1995, Keigwin et al., 1994, Jones et al., 1996; Rahmstorf et al., 1996).

       II.2 Carbon dioxide and methane concentration as a feedback in sudden changes.

       Analysis of bubbles in ice cores shows that at the peak of glacial phases, CO2 was about 30% lower than during interglacial conditions (e.g., Jouzel et al., 1993). We do not at present know whether the lower glacial CO2 levels were a cause or merely an effect of the ice ages.

       III.3 Surface reflectivity (albedo) of ice, snow and vegetation.

       The intensely white surface of sea ice and snow reflects back much of the sun’s heat, hence keeping the surface cool. Presently, about a third of the heat received from the sun is reflected back into space, and changes in this proportion thus have the potential to strongly influence global climate (e.g., Crowley and North, 1991). In general the ice cover on the sea, and the snow cover on the land, have the potential to set off rapid climate changes because they can either appear or disappear rapidly given the right circumstances.

       III.4 Water vapour as a feedback in sudden changes.

       Water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and as its atmospheric concentration can vary rapidly, it could have been a major trigger or amplifier in many sudden climate changes.

       III.5. Dust and particulates as a feedback in sudden changes.

       Particles of mineral dust, plus the aerosols formed from fires and from chemicals evaporating out of vegetation and the oceans, may also be a major feedback in co-ordinating and amplifying sudden large climate fluctuations.

       III.6. Seasonal sunlight intensity as a background to sudden changes.

       A major background factor in pacing climate switches on timescales of tens of thousands of years seems to have been the set of ‘Milankovitch’ rhythms in seasonal sunlight distribution or insolation (Imbrie and Imbrie, 1992; Imbrie et al., 1992, 1993). Although the insolation values change gradually over thousands of years, they may take the earth’s climate to a ‘break point’ at which other factors will begin to amplify change into a sudden transition. http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

       …………

       h)  Last but certainly not least in this list of factors causing the last ice age is that the continent of Antarctica moved to its locale near the South Polar Axis, via continental plate drift.

       8-27-09 According to calculations by geologist Professor Christopher Scotese of the University of Texas, Antarctica could
       move significantly away from its current location and become at least partially ice-free again within the next 50 million years. http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/antarctica-moving-away-south-pole

22553. bjchip at 05:44 AM on 29 October 2016
       Climate change could push risk of ‘megadrought’ to 99% in American southwest
       

       It is often a point claimed by some who are uninterested in actually reasoning clearly, that thousands of years ago California and its environs experienced droughts that spanned centuries.   

       Their illogical point is that because the droughts before there was a CO2 issue the CO2 cannot be the cause of droughts.

       That was in the period closest to the holocene optimum.  It was then as warm as it is currently (though we have raised temperatures more suddenly). 

       It is, I always point out, utterly illogical to expect a different result from the same temperatures.    We are returning (briefly, as it appears we are merely passing through them on the way to something much warmer) to the conditions of the climate optimum.    

       There are two questions only.  The first one is how high will it finally go, as it is clear that we're aimed for something significantly in excess of anything our civilization evolved in.  

       The second is the effect of the rate of change.  It is a complex system and we hit it with a step function change of input.  Will it "Ring"?  What would ringing look like? 

       Keep up the good work. 

22554. curiousd at 15:38 PM on 28 October 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Thank you Tom,

        

       Attempting to contact Chris Colose. 

       Curiousd

22555. Rob Honeycutt at 13:28 PM on 28 October 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       It's a little challenging to get statistical significance with 10 years of data. The point is, the trend over the past decade is running warmer than the long term trend. 

       denisaf... This is an ongoing series I've been doing posting this chart showing where we are relative to the 2C limit. And no, the 2C limit dates back to the original UNFCCC in Rio and that doesn't state "2C by 2100." The idea is that we need to limit global temperature to 2C, period. And now there are even more aggressive proposals to limit warming to 1.5C.

22556. Harry Twinotter at 13:20 PM on 28 October 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       It is clear the data shows that there is a good chance the decadal warming trend is accelarating. But the trend is only borderline statistically significant, to 2-sigma anyway? That is Steve L's point?
       
       I am just playing contrarian here.

22557. denisaf at 09:08 AM on 28 October 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       Why calling it 'Tracking the 2 C Limit' when the discussion is about the various measures of the rising temperature. The 2 C Limit discussed at the Paris Conference is a hypothetical value when in actual fact the temperature will continue to rise although the rate trend will depend on how rapidly the global rate of greenhouse gas emissions decreases. The original referral was to '2 C by 2100' not to '2 C Limit'

22558. bjchip at 08:03 AM on 28 October 2016
       Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 2
       

       http://qz.com/817354/scientists-have-been-forecasting-that-burning-fossil-fuels-will-cause-climate-change-as-early-as-1882/

       Those darned Chinese have been trying to hoax us for a longgg time...

       ...or someone isn't competent to be a dog-catcher. 

       :-)

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] Fixed link and excess white space

22559. ubrew12 at 01:30 AM on 28 October 2016
       Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 2
       

       Excellent video! I like the way she anticipates denier arguments and innoculates her listeners with the truth before the 'doubt is our product' crew can infect them. I just found out about Eunice Foote yesterday: amazing bit of history.

22560. Tom Curtis at 15:50 PM on 27 October 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       curiousd @27 and 28, I am fairly sure the formula you are using is incorrect.  Unfortunately I am not sure as to the correct formula.  The HITRAN database gives S_ij and γ_air for each line, where S_ij and γ_air are illustrated by this diagram:

       

       The values given are for a reference temperature of 296 K, and 1 atmosphere pressure.  S varies based on temperature, and γ based on temperature and pressure.  As a result both Pierrehumbert in Principles of Planetary Climate (PoPC) and HITRAN give formulas for making the appropriate adjustment.  For adjusting γ you use PoPC formula 4.61 and HITRAN formula 6.  For adjusting S you use PoPC formula 4.62 and HITRAN formula 4.  At least, that is as best I understand it.  However, these formulas differ, probably based on assumptions about the shape of absorption pattern (shaded area above), which is not strictly known.  There is a brief discussion of this in PoPC pages 227 and 228.

       The actual absorption coefficient in each spectral line is not determined by S alone, but by S and γ as per formula 4.63 (PoPC) and HITRAN formula 10.

       Even if I have misunderstood this, I am certain your formula is incorrect in not taking account of doppler and pressure broadening, which I understand to be very important.

       At this stage I am again going to recommend you consult somebody with significant experience with these formulas. 

22561. Rob Honeycutt at 14:33 PM on 27 October 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       Tom, My sense of the TLT data is that it's sort of a worst of all worlds. While you're right, it is probably the satellite product most similar to the surface data, the channel still peaks well above the surface, plus is measuring a significant portion of the upper troposphere.

       It seems to me it's probably better to look at satellite data and surface data as apples and oranges, and use them to communicate the different aspects of the climate system each is measuring. And for that, TTT is probably the superior channel over TMT or TLT.

22562. Rob Honeycutt at 14:15 PM on 27 October 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Bob.

22563. Rob Honeycutt at 14:05 PM on 27 October 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       I suspect you're right, Bob. Not sure what I did there.

       Will do an update. Thx!

22564. Bob Tisdale at 09:08 AM on 27 October 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       Hi Rob.  You may want to check your decadal trends.  Based on the raw GISS LOTI, HADCRUT4 and Berkeley Earth (land+ocean) data, they appear to be too high for the last 120 months. As determined by EXCEL, for the past 120 months of data, the raw data present the trends of:

       0.312 deg C/decade for Berkeley

       0.314 deg C/decade for GISS

       0.306 deg C/decade for HADCRUT4

       I suspect you're presenting 9-year (108-month) trends.

       Cheers

22565. curiousd at 08:47 AM on 27 October 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       I believe I am correct with the above expression for SMASS, but that somehow the data published in Fig. 4.7 of P-H is as if it were at higher resolution than what I get from the Spectral Calc version of HITRAN. Except for the sharp fundamental around 670 wn, the other features I get agree with P-H pretty well, agreement which yields a check on my expression for SMASS. 

       A few years back, someone on this site told me how to make graphs and publish them cheaply or maybe free with an associated URL. There is some website that does this.  Could someone remind me how this works?

22566. Tom Curtis at 06:44 AM on 27 October 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       While the RSS TTT may be more representative of the troposphere as a whole, the TLT channel remains the best (though far from perfect) comparison with surface temperatures.  Unfortunately it has not been updated in line with the new method for determining the TMT (from which it is derived).

22567. Dcrickett at 06:27 AM on 27 October 2016
       'The atmosphere is being radicalized' by climate change
       

       I do not agree 100% with the essay or any of the comments. I loved them all; this is a necessary conversation. Thanks, everybody!

22568. scaddenp at 06:19 AM on 27 October 2016
       The True Cost of Coal Power
       

       If you are using up a finite resource, then you dont have "sustainable farming" without using a definition of "sustainable" that would differ a long way from any conventional usage.  Why is solar not an option? What part of the world is this?

22569. LaughingMan at 05:53 AM on 27 October 2016
       The True Cost of Coal Power
       

       Now that this is real, the co op rural movement is where I'm at.  Sustainable farming is the name of the game.  How do we power a sustainable farming indoor vertical growing system?  We have no coal power come next month.  Our only means of power generation is oil, natural gas, and gasoline.  Air power and solar are not options.  We don't have hydrogen systems and the Nitinol engine doesn't exist here yet. We have no rivers so to speak, and no alternatives that will provide the megawatts we need for our communities.  I'm tempted to go back to coal or using biomass burnable products that are comparable.  Anyone have a suggestion?  Oil is abundant.  We can burn crude oil by the thousands of barrels and not put a ding into production one bit.

       Thanks! 

       Laughing Man

22570. Steve L at 03:32 AM on 27 October 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - September 2016
       

       La Niña comment is out of date.  Good for you for printing the error along with your 2 sigma errors along with the midpoint trend estimate.  By this you can see that the RSS trend isn't statistically different from zero.  Some of the others aren't highly significant and may become insignificant with 11 years of data (depending on the strength of the coming La Niña).

22571. Glenn Tamblyn at 20:35 PM on 26 October 2016
       'The atmosphere is being radicalized' by climate change
       

       denisaf
       
       "They cannot provide the liquid fuels required by most forms of transport. "

       Where liquid fuels are not required:

       • Electric cars can currently meet daily commuting type range, which is the vast majority of personal car usage.
       • Electric trucks, buses etc can similarly do daily delivery range tasks now.
       • Electric heavy gauge rail does not need liquid fuels.
       • Light Rail/Trams can currently operate electrically and do not need liquid fuels.
       • Similarly, electric trolley buses are common in Eastern Europe - no liquid fuel required.
       • Stand-alone electric buses that us inductive or overhead charging at stops are being trialled in Europe - no liquid fuels.
       • Short range aviation with batteries is possible.

       Where liquid fuel might be required:

       • Longer range aviation. Hard to see an alternative.
       • Shipping. Solar and wind can contribute to reducing the energy demands of a ship, but unlikely to supply more than a modest fraction
       • Long distance personal car use. Battery recharge en route can meet this need but requires longer 'recharge stops'. Liquid fuels only needed if we want fast turn-around time at 'refueling stops'
       • Long distance road transport. Similar. Time vs convenience/cost trade off.

       So aviation and shipping need something like liquid fuels Long distance land trasnport only needs it if we value time more highly than other factors.
       
       So if we are willing to wear longer long distance land journeys, we only need liquid (or compressed gas) fuels for aviation and shipping. And we can source those from renewables via electrolosys, chemical synthesis, biofuels etc.

22572. nigelj at 10:36 AM on 26 October 2016
       'The atmosphere is being radicalized' by climate change
       

       I just think radicalising the atmosphere is a bit sensationalist. Maybe restructuring the atmosphere has the right sound. And we all know how restructuring ends, not always very well.

22573. nigelj at 10:32 AM on 26 October 2016
       'The atmosphere is being radicalized' by climate change
       

       Michael Sweet @5, as you say in about 100 years oil will be used up. This is one of the things that persuades me that we might as well go ahead with alternative energy, because we will run out of oil eventually. Climate change is sort of a trigger that has come unexpectedly. Its not a major factor that persuades me, but all these things do add up.

       If by some miracle global warming is not as bad as predicted (just to be clear I think we have a big problem), the oil will always be in the ground if we need it. Our options will always be open, in terms of energy sources. But if we warm the climate, that will be a one way trip, and very hard to reverse.

       However new technologies like renewable energy are dropping in price and becoming attractive on an economic basis, regardless of the global warming issue. And another thing with new technology: it often has numerous unpredictable advantages and uses. Witness how microprocessors have revolutionised phones. When contemplating choices relating to climate change, it pays to factor in all the potential benefits from new technology, because its highly probable there will be many.

       I find the argument that electricity can’t resolve all transport problems rather frustrating. It can reduce a huge percentage of fossil fuel reliance. Surely that's what counts.

       Aircraft emissions are more challenging, but can be offset by growing forests or some other non- carbon based fuel source could be used like ammonia, or some completely new form of fuel.

22574. Tom Curtis at 09:40 AM on 26 October 2016
       Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded
       

       Digby Scorgie @11, yes - and thanks for the catch.

22575. Tom Curtis at 09:39 AM on 26 October 2016
       'The atmosphere is being radicalized' by climate change
       

       denisaf @3, solar systems and wind farms can straight forwardly provide hydrogen as a fuel through electrolysis.  More importantly, there are a variety of methods to convert CO2 into useful fuels, including:

       CO2 to Jet Fuel (Electricity)

       CO2 to Methanol (Heat)

       CO2 to Ethanol (Electricity)

       CO2 to Methane (Sunlight)

       CO2 to Jet Fuel (Sunlight)

       CO2 to diesel (Biological)

       The first three can be driven by solar systems and wind farms; while the hydrogen (from electrolysis) is a key ingredient in some of the others.  None of these methods is commercial yet, but there is every reason to think at least some of them will be.  The first process (or a similar more efficient process) is currently planned to by the US Navy as a future supplier of jet fuel for naval operations, with electricity drawn from nuclear reactors in air craft carriers, so we can expect that process to be developed to a commercial stage.  In addition, Space X is planning to use solar power plus CO2 to generate fuel at Mars for return trips in its projected Mars program.

       In short, while renewable energy is only capable of supplying 100% of land, stationary energy (including for electric trains, and recharging batteries for electric cars) with todays technology, it is not constrained to that role by physics, but by current, and temporary technological limits. 

22576. Digby Scorgie at 09:35 AM on 26 October 2016
       Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded
       

       Tom Curtis @10

       In your item (b) don't you mean 2038, not 1938?

22577. michael sweet at 09:32 AM on 26 October 2016
       'The atmosphere is being radicalized' by climate change
       

       Denisaf,

       Jacobson 2015 shows that renewable energy can supply 100% of all power.  Jacobson won the 2015 Cozzarelli Prize from the National Academy of Science for best paper in the PNAS for this work.  

       Your wild, unsupported claim that renewable energy cannot supply all energy is simply false.  The comments policy requires links to peer reviewed data that supports your claims.  Please provide links to support your wild claim that renewable energy cannot provide all power.  

       In 100 years fossil fuels will run out if we do not stop using them today.   What do you expect to take their place when cheap liquid fuels are no longer available?  Why can't we build out WWS as Jacobson describes now, instead of waiting for fossil fuels to run out.  Already coal is becoming uneconomic in competition with wind and solar.  Your argument does not withstand the most basic evaluation.

22578. RedBaron at 08:38 AM on 26 October 2016
       'The atmosphere is being radicalized' by climate change
       

       @3 denisaf,

        Actually I believe a lot of transportation can be replaced by stored electric vehicles. However your point is well taken. Probably not all. That's why I have posted multiple times on various threads here that a 3 pronged approach is probably best. Here and here are a couple examples.

22579. denisaf at 07:05 AM on 26 October 2016
       'The atmosphere is being radicalized' by climate change
       

       Solar systems and wind farms use weak enegy income to intermttedly provide some electricity during their limited life times. They cannot provide the liquid fuels required by most forms of transport. These are facts that determine 'renewable' energy systems can only fill a niche role in the operation of industrialized civilization, despite the views of many people who do not understand that physical reality.

22580. Cooper13 at 04:17 AM on 26 October 2016
       'The atmosphere is being radicalized' by climate change
       

       I realize this gets 'off topic' from the typical climate discussions, however, I think it's important to identify also the perspectives that climate change and potential mitigations (e.g. renewable energy) will have in other areas - two in particular.

       1. Energy (fossil fuels) and terrorism money - the US absolutely has the potential to produce all its energy needs from wind and solar. It is an infrastructure and cost issue, not a 'capability' issue.

       Doing so (and other world nations following suit) means fossil fuels lose value - rapidly (stranded assets). This means entities such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, etc. are all at risk of losing their primary sources of national revenues - it also means that none of the money spent on fossil fuels purchased from these nations can be filtered into radical religous sects or terrorist groups. Mitigating climate change won't "solve" terrorism, but one aspect of it (shifting away from oil resources) may certainly alter whether these radical groups can get any funding, and where that funding will come from.

       2.  U.S. 'green energy' and trade - we have a massive trade deficit in the US, because we import from areas where labor costs are cheap, and fossil fuels used to ship those products globally are 'cheap'.

       If 'renewable energy' were tied to international trade costs (e.g. 'true' costs of fuels for shipping; carbon 'tariffs' or taxes on products produced using fossil fuels), and the US develops a 'green' energy grid, you immediately gain better cost-competitiveness for things 'made in USA' (or made locally or anywhere they are produced and shipped using carbon-free energy).  

       The entities that have large infrastructure investements in maintaining the status quo (fossil fuel producers/nations; companies and nations with factories and 'on the ground' investments where labor is cheap) stand to lose out with a carbon tax or any form of trade tariffs on products made with carbon-based energy. It's not only the "Exxons" of the world. 

       Climate change, as temperatures continue to rise, is going to be disruptive.

       Upsetting the 'norm' of a worldwide economy  and worldwide infrastructure that's been designed to run off carbon based energy for over a century, is also going to be disruptive.

       The real challenge we have as a society is figuring out which political leaders can craft transitional laws and framework to minimize the economic disruptions as we shift away from fossil fuels, and recognizing the benefits and opportunities that will be available and really helping some of these heavily 'carbon-energy embedded' companies and entities to benefit from the new 'rules', rather than making them out as 'the enemy' and as 'those who will lose out'. When these entities believe they will lose out, they are going to dig in their heels, and continue to fund climate-denial groups to maintain their status-quo revenue streams for as long as possible.

22581. curiousd at 02:30 AM on 26 October 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       I want to back off to something more basic, and if this also is considered too technical for Skeptical Science than I would feel better about contacting someone like Gavin Schmidt.  What is the formula that relates the HITRAN tabulated cross section I will call STAB to the corresponding mass absorption coefficient I call SMASS? Here is how I do this.

       1. multiply STAB (cm²/molecule) by 10^-4 m²/cm² to give STAB in m²/molecule.

       2. PV = NkT where k is Boltzmann's constant. And so N/V = P/kT.

       Then multiply equation 1 by P/kT so that (m²/molecule) x (molecules/m³⁾

       gives SLIN, the linear absorption coefficient in reciprocal meters.

       3. Now one has SLIN = STAB x 10^-4 x P/kT ; units m^-1

       4. One now needs SMASS = SLIN/mass density of atmosphere

       5. PV = nRT where n is the gas constant and n is the number of moles per cubic meter. I next divide by n/V = P/RT to obtain

       6. STAB x 10^-4 x (P/kT)/(P/RT); the Ps and Ts cancel to yield

       7. STAB x 10^-4 (R/k) x (1/n) where n is the number of moles per cubic meter.

       8. The mass of gas per mole is 0.029 kg.

       Then n (moles/cubic meter) x 0.029 (kg/ mole) = kg / cubic meter

       9. SMASS = STAB x 10^-4 x (R/k) x (1/0.029)  (m² / kg)

       The most intense line in the CO₂ bending mode part of the IR spectrum is close to 

       STAB = 3 x 10^-19 cm²/ molecule . Inserted into equation 9 above I get something between 600 and 700 m² /  kg.  I think this may be  somewhat too small looking at Fig. 4.12 in Pierrehumbert.

22582. WXheights at 23:08 PM on 25 October 2016
       'The atmosphere is being radicalized' by climate change
       

       Policy makers who are denying climate science or are indifferent to it while running for office as "leaders" have no business whatsoever as a leader. they are foot draggers politically connected by their doners - which taken 5 minutes can easily follow the money. Therefore, in my humble opinion - there needs to be bite behind this bark of denial.  I would propose the next hyper floods should have famouse policy members names on them.  Example 2018 Donald Trump Flood kills 16 people as rivers swell and many lose theier homes.  There has to be punishment and these followers not leaders need to have equal amounts of money cost to tax payers - we need to get rough — nhow is the time to take it to them with no uncertain terms.  I would hope the namby pamby would either grow a pair or find their spine.  The rest of us are tired not seeing punishment attached — its time to make them pay a price —  God damn it the world is sure paying - lets make it a two way street.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] While we appreciate your passion on this matter, we also ask you to keep the discussion civil.

22583. Tom Curtis at 22:24 PM on 25 October 2016
       Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded
       

       Art Vandelay @4, Scaddenp @7, I did a little analysis and found that, for RCP 8.5 the last year in which one of the 39 ensemble members:

       a) Was negative over the preceding 10 years was 2034;

       b) Was near zero (defined as having a trend in degrees C/decade of less than 0.1) was 1938; and

       c)  That the last year in which 5% of ensemble members had a near zero trend over the preceding decade was 2035.

       Further, in 2016, 1.3% of trends over the preceding 10 years were negative; while 3.8% were near negative.  These percentages fluctuate wildly from year to year.  For example, 13.2% are near negative in 2019.  The means for the 10 terminal years from 2005-2015 are 5.4% and 20% respectively.

       With respect to Art Vandelay's supposition @9 that "It appears hghly unlikely, though possible, that the 2020's will be cooler than the present decade"; that would be correct.  Although there are negative decadal trends at that period in the ensemble, in looking at decadal averages we are samply just 10% of the running 10 year trends, which themselves have a low probability of being negative.

22584. Tom Curtis at 15:36 PM on 25 October 2016
       It's the sun
       

       pink @1196, read again my paragraph immediately following the chart.  To make it clearer, the difference in TSI between the 2008 solar minimum and the 1958 solar maximum was just 1 W/m^2, or 0.07%.  That works out to a solar forcing of just 0.175 W/m^2, or less than a 10th of the change in anthropogenic forcing over the 20th century.  Further, arguing that "its the Sun" requires you to believe that the most rapid and longest sustained temperature increase driven by the Sun was the result of the Sun having a slightly cooling trend (from 1951-2008).

22585. Tom Curtis at 15:29 PM on 25 October 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       While part of me thinks that Eclectic's comment @160 is all the comment that sjab @159 deserves, nevertheless, here is the full fisking:

       1)  I'm sure I understood it to, but in physics units matter.  C. Sheen's cavalier approach to units made it worthwhile pointing out this instance.  As we shall see, you are equally cavalier about units (sufficiently so that I suspect you are merely a sock puppet of C. Sheen.)  A case in point comes from your response to (2) where you cannot see how TSI/volume/volume leads to units of W/m^8.  To spell it out, TSI is measured in W/m^2.  Dividing twice by volume is equivalent to multiplying the numerator twice by the units of volume, ie, m^3.  Hence W/(m^2 x m^3 x m^3), hence W/m^8.  Your claim that, "W can just be switched for Joule without problem" is equally troubling.  Watts only become Joules if they are multiplied by a unit of time, or some comlex equation of units that simplifies to a unit of time.  This is not just pedantry.  It is the bastion against rampant nonsense and pseudoscience.  If your units don't work out, your theory is bust (of which more later). 

       2) Dividing by (4*pi*r^3)/3 only applies when you are determining the ratio relative to the volume of a sphere.  As demonstrated at points (5) and (6) @158, the two sphere approach of C Sheen as modified in my point (4) also does not work.  It was only introduced to demonstrate the irrelevancy of the result (of which more later).  If you want to ressurect it, you need to specify what are the two spheres, and why are they important to the discussion.  Absent the clear articulation of the reason for dividing by the volue of two spheres, you have no basis for the theory.  Worse (and this should be obvious), if your formula is W/m^2 divided by a volume, your result will be in W/m^5, not in Joules/m^3.  I did not think this was necessary to point out in point (4) @158 as that was solely to indicate the irrelevance of the number produced, but as you want to take that formula seriously, you skewered by the same logic that brought C Sheen's original formulation undone.

       3)  Oh, that's right, you had not response to point (3), and indeed repeat an equivalent mistake as noted above.

       4)  Before beginning on this, I would like to determine the radiant energy density of the incoming solar radiation at the Earth's surface on the sunlit side of the Earth.  To begin with, the TSI is 1370 W/m^2.  To bring that into units of J/m^3 we need to multiply by some factor having the units of seconds/meter; ie, the inverse of a velocity.  That is, we need to divide by a velocity.  The obvious velocity to use is that of light.

       So, does that work?  Imagine we have an incoming solar radiation 1360.5 W/m^2 striking a one square meter plate perpendicular to the incoming radiation.  At any instant, the solar radiation that will fall on that plate over the next second is strung out over a one light second, or a 299792458 meter, column extending from that plate to towards the Sun.  The energy density of solar radiation of any cubic meter within that column will then be (1360.5 W/m^2)/(299792458 m/s).  (Note, for power density we would simply divide by 299792458 meters.)  Hence the energy density of incoming solar radiation is  4.54 x 10^-6 Joules/meter cubed.  Because the energy density is uniform it would be the same for all sunlit portions of the Earth, and half that averaged over the whole surface.  (That, of course, ignores cloud albedo, and atmospheric absorption.)

       Armed with this information, let's march through your "coincidences":

       a) "1027.5/4= 256.875W/m^2" - "1027.5" is purported to be the energy density of incoming solar radiation, but is very far from it.  Further, treated as an energy density, 1027.5/4 = 256.875 J/m^3, which is entirely irrelevant.

       b) "The effective temperature is 279 at a flux density 343W/m^2 using the whole TSI. 1370/4=342.5" -

       The effective temperature is the temperature of a black body having the same energy flux, and is  consequently irrelevant to your example.  The surface flux is actually 398 W/m^2, not 343 W/m^2 (see diagram below), and the TSI is 1360.5 W/m^2 at the last solar minimum, and just less than 1361.5 W/m^2 at the peak of the strongest recent solar maximums.  Further, for mean energy density you divide by two, not four.  Doing so, we find 680.25 W/m^2 is not coincidental with 398 W/m^2 (nor with the 342 W/m^2 back radiation).

       

       c) "The energy density at the surface is 1027.5J/m^3. 1370-1027.5=342.5(!)" - Again, pay attention to units.  1370 W/m^2 - 1027.5 J/m^3 is gobbeldy-gook.  You need to introduce a constant with units of m/s or s/m (depending on which side of the substraction it is used), but then it is entirely ad hoc.  That is, ignoring the egregious error in calculating the energy density.

       d) "Surface flux density is 385W/m^2".  No, a density is a value per unit volume.  Ergo the surface flux density is 385 398 W/m^2/c = 1.33 x 10^-6 W/m^3.

       Given these massive errors in calculating the "coincidences", the rest of your discussion on point (4) is a baseless diatribe, and requires no further response.

22586. Art Vandelay at 15:24 PM on 25 October 2016
       Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded
       

       scaddenp @ 6, agree, that was slightly ambiguous due to over simplification. I did indeed mean multidecadal variability, which includes ocean heat exchange + short term forcings, but excluding volcanism, and assuming current emissions growth. 

       It appears hghly unlikely, though possible, that the 2020's will be cooler than the present decade, given that every decade since the 1970's has been progressively warmer than the previous.   

22587. pink at 14:59 PM on 25 October 2016
       It's the sun
       

       But even chart posted by Tom Curtis shows exceptional solar activity in the period of 1900-2000, definently beating the previous 300 years.  And that's the same century where the establishment science claims too much warming due to GHGs.  I don't see a big difference between that chart and the chart published in Usoskin et al., 2014.

22588. Eclectic at 13:54 PM on 25 October 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       sjab @159 , there is much in what you say.

       The energy density at the surface flux interface, presents a multi-dimensional challenge to conventional climate science ( as well as to physics as a whole ) .

       Difficulties arise at the flux capacitor site positioning - if the capacitors are placed close to Latitude 80 N , then there is a risk polar sea ice drift could bring some flux capacitors to the exact positioning where Earth surface rotational speed is at 88 mph.   With catastrophic consequences.  Dimensional distortion would permit heat energy to be projected into the future - with unknowable dangerous effects . . . or far worse, projection into the past, thus producing a runaway positive feedback over the past-present temporal loop.   Our planet would become completely fluxed.

       [ Moderators, please feel very free to delete this post . . . if you should happen to decide to purge all threads of the recent sjabberwocky spam. ]

22589. MarcusGibson at 12:35 PM on 25 October 2016
       A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios
       

       Dear SkepSci,

       I'd like to see some material on actual scenarios, rather than long-term temp trend; a little more Ec and PolSci? More qual less quant.

       We've seen drought ignite political instabilities and storms shut down grids and flood cities owing to infrastructure vulnerabilities. The real "worst case scenario" is that well before we hit +1.5-2°C extreme weather hits the worst places at the worst time, politically or economically.

       For example, what if a major flood hit the Pearl River Delta displacing 20m pp, crippling 1/4 of China's manufacturing, and triggering a US bond sell-off - combined with recent QE - that collapses the already fragile global banking sector ?

       Or, at what point do declines in Himalayan meltwater (cutting inflows to the largest rivers in Asia) escalate the India/Pakistan water conflict to a nuclear engagement?

       Where is the worst place now to have another 1-in-500 year drought like the one that crippled Syria?

       Where is the next Fukishima? Is it Kudankulam? Turkey Point? Plymouth?

       Identifiying vulnerable infrastructure, economies, and political climates would (a) help focus people's attention a little better than "+1.5 vs +2 vs +5" and (b) help allocate resources based on risk?

       There are loads of papers around on the above topics. Thoughts?

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] While I can in no way speak for John Cook and other authors on this site, I would note that mission of this site is to address climate myths with published science. There are other sites (eg climatesciencewatch or thinkprogress)  with more interest in the Polsci or Ec issues.

22590. sjab at 10:26 AM on 25 October 2016
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       

       In few words this link provides the information about the reason for surface not absorbing low frequency energy.

       A surface much hotter than a molecule absorbing a couple of wavelengths and emitting only that same energy, while the surface emission is continous, will not have available energy levels for such low quality energy. Emitting continously across the spectrum from a dense solid matter constantly sharing all energy within by kinetic interaction, will automatically have those energy states populated. It is transparent to those photons.

       Reason is quantum mechanics.

       http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod3.html

       "The energy levels for all physical processes at the atomic and molecular levels are quantized, and if there are no available quantized energy levels with spacings which match the quantum energy of the incident radiation, then the material will be transparent to that radiation, and it will pass through."

       Moderator Response:

       [PS] If you want to engage with people on science please stick to commenting one or two thread and follow through there please before moving onto another topic. Spamming lots of threads is no way to seek engagement. And if you arent interested in engaging with the science, then please amuse yourself elsewhere.

22591. sjab at 10:17 AM on 25 October 2016
       Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
       

       How does that spectrum show warming?

       There are large chunks taken out of the continous spectra by water and co2. A lowered intensity is not heat,

       Increased absorption always means a larger temperature difference, as absorption increase with the difference.

       That spectrum shows cooling.

22592. sjab at 10:07 AM on 25 October 2016
       Arctic was warmer in 1940
       

       I`ll just leave this here to keep things balanced.

       https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/qjcallender38.pdf

       "In reply to Dr. Brooks, the author agreed that the recent rise in arctic temperatures was far too large to be attributed to change of CO he thought that the latter might act as a promotor to start a series of imminent changes in the northern ice conditions. On account of their large rise he had not included the arctic stations in the world temperature curve"

       "Dr. C. E. P. BROOKS said that he had no doubt that there had been a real climatic change during the past thirty or forty years. This was shown not only by the rise of temperature at land stations, but also by the decrease in the amount of ice in arctic and probably also in antarctic regions and by the rise of sea telnperatures. This rise of temperature could however be explained, qualitatively if not quantitatively, by changes in the atnmospheric circulation, and in those regions where a change in the circulation would be expected to cause a fall of temperature, there had actually been a fall ; moreover the rise of temperature was about ten tinnes as great in the arctic regions as in middie or low latitudes, and he did not think that a change in the amount of carbon dioxide could cause such a differential effect. "

22593. sjab at 09:04 AM on 25 October 2016
       Greenhouse effect has been falsified
       

       158. Tom Curtis at 08:12 AM on 18 September, 2016

       1. I think you understood what he means. It is all simplification and the surface area is just a sign beside a number of importance.

       2.Dividing by 4/3pi*r^3 is used when calculating mass-energy density, mostly used for very large masses on a cosmological scale.

       It can also be used for radiant energy density:

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_energy_density

       Unit is J/m^3 remembering that Joule per second is equal to Watt. Since radiation moves at light speed TSI can switch units to J/m^3.

       I don´t now how you got the very strange unit of W/m^8, as W can just be switched for Joule without problem. It is r^3 that gives the cubic volume the same way that r^2 gives m^2 when calculating effective temperature.

       You just extrude the square metre into a cubic metre and switch to Joule. Or, if you are uncomfortable with Joule there are several other names for W/m^3 like spectral exposure or spectral irradiance.

       You can view TSI as the bottom of a cubic metre emitting through a square metre, no doubt there is enough energy in solar radiation to fill a cubic metre with an energy density of the same amount as TSI/m^2 in one second, so there is no problem to use W/m^3.

       I think that using spherical geometry volume is just the right way to do it. You point at the shrinking volume compared to a cubic metre, and I think that is what makes it work. A squaremetre at the tropopause is represented by a smaller area at the surface, shrinking to a point on the way down to the core.

       4. It apparently should be done like that. It seems to work perfectly when accounting for each layer showing what happens at each absorption, first the dry atmosphere and then solid surface and the watercircuit as one body. The number 513 is double the amount of the energy balance between the surface and atmosphere, which also is the mean temperature of the gradient in the troposphere 1027.5/4= 256.875W/m^2. So that number is traceable as well, but to what use? It is of no apparent use and the reason is you not understanding what you were doing.

       Interestingly, as I showed, it is not random.

       You claim that it is pure coincidence that he gets 770W for the flux of two square metres of the surface. I have looked into this model a bit deeper and found more "coincidences" among other very interesting details. So I will walk you through it and see if you still think that it is pure coincidence.

       The effective temperature is 279 at a flux density 343W/m^2 using the whole TSI. 1370/4=342.5

       The energy density at the surface is 1027.5J/m^3. 1370-1027.5=342.5(!)

       The energy stored in the solid surface mass is 770J/m^3 and the energy  balance between the energy density at the surface(1027J) and the following longwave part of the system including the solid surface and atmosphere is 1027/4=257W/m^2. 1027-770=257(!)

       Now when absorbed and diffused from half the sphere throughout the entire solid volume, it is more appropriate to use surface flux because we want the surface temperature and the transfer rates through the atmosphere.

       Surface flux density is 385W/m^2.  Using the energy balance for the irradiation at the surface, 257W/m^2, we get the rate of heat transfer from surface to the troposhere, 385-257=128W/m^2. Which is equal to a flux density of TOA radiation at the temperature 218K(!).

       The heat transfer from the atmosphere using energy balance of 257W/m^2 is 257-128=129W/m^2. The exact energy balance for surface irradiation is 256,875 and the exact surface flux is 385.3125.

       Using the exact values we get a transfer to the troposphere mean of 256.875W/m^2 of 128,4375 from the surface, exactly half of the energy balance, which is also the intensity equal to TOA longwave flux density.(!!!)

       So, when you said that the result 385W/m^2 of surface flux calculated this way by Mr.Sheen is a pure coincidence, exactly what did you mean?

       The way he does it, nails the temperature at all relevant points in the surface-atmosphere system. And it balances perfectly leaving nothing left.

       An interesting detail is the connection between what is lost in the process of absorption into a new spherical layer and the energy balance between irradiation and that volume. It implies that energy density can be treated
       as opposing forces "the old fashioned newtonian way". The force of incoming radiation seems to be balanced exactly on absorption, only transferring the excess into the next layer. It makes me speculate about the absorption process as a macroscopic quantized mechanism.

       Now, when presented to a more detailed model, accounting for all of TSI through the process of absorption and emission of both short and longwaves, arriving at values at each layer that is very close to observation and following through all the way out back to the system boundary of TOA, not leaving a single Watt left to be questioned, do you stand by that getting a correct surface flux was "pure coincidence"?

        

       I think this has killed the GH-theory in a single stroke. If using solar radiation as mass-energy and making no distinction between them, treating earth as only a empty spherical multilayer canvas where solar energy is projected, it seems to account for every single watt in the system, putting them in the right places as well. This makes everything above the surface pure solar energy only, which of course is correct since it is the only source of energy present.

       Irradiation accounts for both mass and energy at the same time. Making everything above the solid surface a pure product of E=m*c^2. Where all mass above surface is existing in space at squared lightspeed.

       The sphere as the only factor explaining the energy inside the system in more detail than the GH-model, accounting for all energy and mass, means that nothing inside the system is acting, it is only reacting. Everything from temperature to albedo or glaciers is a product of energy density in relation to the electromagnetic field. The temperature cannot rise. Unless the sun increase the mass-energy density in the field where earth is positioned.

       I think you just lost every bit of credibility and relevance that you imagined that you have in the discussion of climate, climate change and temperature. If you had avoided the aggressive and insulting attitude, and thoughtless throwing of words like "packed with flaws"and "a discussion so jam packed with fundamental errors of geometry", when it actually was you that was incapable of seeing the relationship that I spotted immediately when reading it, you would have spared yourself a lot of shame.

       The thing is, the model performed better than GH-theory even when there only was "pure coincidence" that it got the surface flux right. Because that has been the problem all along. Gh-theory don´t even explain anything about the planet, since the effective temperature is the "blackbody", which is an isothermal body with the same temperature throughout, abosrbing and emitting at an infinately thin surface positioned at TOA. That is something that never will exist and the reason for using it as base for the distribution of energy in the system is unclear.

       The model of GH-theory is a pure expression of misunderstanding all "science" included. It fails to represent century old concepts of radiation, electromagnetic field, temperature, energy density and heat transfer, claiming to stand on a base of physics.

       Next time, remind yourself of carefully analyzing what conclusions that NOT can be drawn from the information you have. That was a big part of physics back when these concepts where discovered. It was probably the key to their great success.

       To calculate effective temperature and then discovering the difference to observation, it is a bad idea to use that as a base for new conclusions.

       You claimed in bold letters that Mr.Sheen`s formula was in error, but it is you that were in error. Mr.Sheen was exactly right. As you see, that shit is flawless and shiny perfection.

       You should have continued to investigate why there was a error in your model instead of assuming that effective temperature is almighty. You only had to read the definition of a blackbody to realise that effective temperature says nothing of how hot the surface should be. It tells you the flux density that would be emitted at the tropopause if the earth had the same temperature through it´s entire volume, absorbing and emitting from a perfectly black infinately thin surface.

       A model of what the opposite of earth would emit 10km above the surface was a bad choice for modeling the climate.

       The comments about "pure coincidence", the flaws and implying your superior knowledge about geometry and units must seem like a bad idea now. Climate science seems to have kept you in place eating your humbleness and made you blind, leaving you with nothing left but shame.

       You should at least have had a second look seeing if there were more "coincidences". I learned a long time ago that I don´t know everything, not even when I know everything.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Inflamatory & argumentative statements stricken. 

       Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

       Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

22594. Tom Curtis at 09:03 AM on 25 October 2016
       Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded
       

       scaddenp @7, between c2013 and 2022 there is a dark blue projection lying well above the others (it intersects another about midway, so it may be the continuation is from the other intersecting projection).  Regardless, from 2020 it starts a distinctly negative trend, unlike anything we have seen over the supposed "hiatus".  It is a little unclear after 2025, but no dark blue line rises above the 2020 level of that projection until after 2030.  I would say that is one visually discriminable example.  It is, however, a projection of RCP 2.6 forcings.

22595. Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 25 October 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       curiosd, my original post @25 was much longer, although probably not much more useful.  Essentially, I suggest you plot the weak line fit and formula 63 in addition to the strong line and Malkmus model fits.  As I understand the text, all four should be close approximations so that if you have an outlier, you will have identified that you implimentation of the outlier will contain a mathematical error.  Failing that, you have to alternatives.  If you print a plot of your output, some other of the regular commentators here may be able to identify the error.  However, better would be to seek advise directly from one of the three individuals named @22.  Finally, here is an alternative version of the text of Principles of Planetary Climate.  The page numbers of the relevant section are about 30 less than in the printed version.  It may be that some small difference in wording in the alternative may give you a clue.  I doubt that this is particularly helpful, but I am afraid it is the best I can do on this topic.

22596. Tom Curtis at 08:05 AM on 25 October 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       curiousd, on page 228, Pierrehumbert gives a formula for a double integration that yields the mean transmission (Formula 4.63), and then writes:

       "The argument of the exponential is just the optical thickness of the layer between p1 and p2, and to keep the notation simple we will assume the integral to be taken in the sense that makes it positive. The double integral and the nonlinearity of the exponential make this a hard beast to work with, but there are two limits in which the result becomes simple. When the layer of atmosphere between p1 and p2 is optically thin even at the center of the line, where absorption is strongest, the line is said to be in the weak line regime. All lines are in this regime in the limit p2 → p1, though if the line is very narrow or the intensity is very large, the atmospheric layer might have to be made exceedingly small before the weak line limit is approached. For weak lines the exponential can be approximated as exp(−δτ ) ≈ 1 − δτ, ..."

       He then give equation 4.64, which won't copy and paste, so I will leave interested readers to look it up.

       He then discusses formulas for the weak line regime, including informing us (just after formula 4.65) that W ≡ S(T_o)

22597. scaddenp at 07:13 AM on 25 October 2016
       Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded
       

       Or another way of looking it, if you looked at individual runs from climate models, (eg look at this figure

       can you find lines with little or no warming for 10 years? Not easy to assess on the diagram but I would guess, yes, you could.

22598. scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 25 October 2016
       Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded
       

       Art, it very much depends on what you call a natural "forcing". Real natural forcing are changes in solar input, orbitally-forced albedo changes and volcanic aerosols. Anthropogenic forcing certainly overwhelm the first two but a big volcanic eruption near the tropics will still certainly cause short-term cooling. However, when you talk about "natural cycles", I suspect you mean things that are not really forcings but the internal variability as heat is redistributed around a wet planet (eg ENSO). The short-term effects of these on surface temperature (positive and negative) from these easily overwhelm the effect of all climatic forcings - but only on decadal scales.

       For looking at climate, you either concentrate on long term trends (which is how climate is defined), or look to indicators that are only slightly affected by ocean-atmosphere heat exchange (eg Ocean heat content, sea level, global glacial volume).

22599. nigelj at 07:07 AM on 25 October 2016
       Global warming continues; 2016 will be the hottest year ever recorded
       

       Art @ 4, the surface still warmed over the last 10 or 15 years, just slowly, so the anthropogenic component was still greater than the other components.

       However I think you are basically right, that as the greenhouse effect intensifies it increasingly overwhelms sunspot and ocean cycles.

       The last decade had a combination of natural cooling events including sunspot cycles, high aerosols, and a cooling ocean cycle related to the PDO being in a cool phase. This is quite a combination of strong natural cooling events, at one time period, but the most it could do was slow the warming from greenhouse gases, not reverse this. Such a combination of cooling vents may be quite rare.

22600. curiousd at 05:22 AM on 25 October 2016
       Welcome to Skeptical Science
       

       Again a stumble ....Smass is what one obtains by converting  from a cross section in cm squared  per molecule in HITRAN (times w n) to meter squared per Kg (times w n) .  The path Ls is in kg/meter squared. Then the equivalent width has units of wave number and thecombination of equivalent width divided by the band width delta in wave numbers is dimensionless.  Since the sum of equivalent widths divided by band width is an exponent it must be dimensionless. And it is.  

       curiousd

Prev  444  445  446  447  448  449  450  451  452  453  454  455  456  457  458  459  Next