|
Post by steve on Nov 17, 2010 11:50:18 GMT
So two of the cycles are decadal? Is that "most of the cycles" then?
The context of the discussion is "control knobs" for the climate. Cycles are not "control knobs".
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Nov 17, 2010 13:45:00 GMT
Steve, most of these things are oscillations (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, for example), not cycles like seasons. They can be highly variable over variable periods of time. And they can have worldwide effects on weather events, depending on timing, strength, longevity, etc. Sort of like what a set of control knobs could do.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 17, 2010 14:11:24 GMT
So two of the cycles are decadal? Is that "most of the cycles" then? The context of the discussion is "control knobs" for the climate. Cycles are not "control knobs". All of those cycles take decades. Again...you're either ignoring us completely or stupid. Which is it? ...and probably the biggest "control knob" is the orientation of the continents...an extremely chaotic driver which changes the climate through, oh would you look at that, the way the oceans and atmosphere interact to distribute energy.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 17, 2010 16:28:32 GMT
But there _must_ be a 'control knob' because if there isn't then CO2 cannot be identified as being 'THE' control knob - and where would that leave the CAGW hypothesis?
A climate system that is chaotic with continually varying oscillations from hours to centuries and even millenia leading to apparently stochastic variations in all sorts of values is just totally unacceptable.
Much simpler to have a control knob that works based on a simple radiation formula - more comforting that way.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 17, 2010 17:07:51 GMT
There seem to be two conversations going on here. One is a conversation about what "control knobs" on climate there are, and the other is on whether water vapour can act as a control knob.
The second part of the conversation has two strands - 1) can water/water vapour act as a control knob, and 2) is it controlling the climate now (ie. causing the warming).
I do not find the explanations that link the current warming largely to ocean cycles compelling because I think the variability of the influence of the oceans is over-stated and the mechanisms unconvincing.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 17, 2010 17:08:59 GMT
But there _must_ be a 'control knob' because if there isn't then CO 2 cannot be identified as being 'THE' control knob - and where would that leave the CAGW hypothesis? A climate system that is chaotic with continually varying oscillations from hours to centuries and even millenia leading to apparently stochastic variations in all sorts of values is just totally unacceptable. Much simpler to have a control knob that works based on a simple radiation formula - more comforting that way. I've already said that I don't like the control knob analogy.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 17, 2010 19:57:51 GMT
I do not find the explanations that link the current warming largely to ocean cycles compelling because I think the variability of the influence of the oceans is over-stated and the mechanisms unconvincing. Since the big dog in the ocean play is the Pacific Ocean it is hard to overstate the impact of the best climate measured region in the world (US) not being warmer than the 1940's while the rest of the globe is. I find that single statistic perplexing, how a region on earth could not have warmed over the vast majority of carbon emissions via a Pacific Ocean oscillation. The first thing that comes to mind as an explanation is temperature reconstructions. We are talking tenths of a degree in a world where the absolute temperature has an error bar of a degree. Trendwise with the satellite era we have shortened those error bars to the variation between the various metrics (2 or 3 tenths?) but from an absolute comparison to the past the error and thus the "industrial age" warming remains suspect. As I sit here I have just experienced I believe the coldest summer of my experience for a single location over a 50 year period. I realize that it could be random natural variation overriding a strong warming signal but statistically one has to wonder especially when factoring in the above US averages, the shenanigans, and everything else political going on. I am not going to get my panties in a bunch about not being able to identify the means. We are seeing huge global effects of atmosphere height, unusual fluctuations in cosmic rays, unusual solar activity, magnetic portals exchanging energy with the sun. I have too much experience to not conclude a lot of the consensus we hear about is directly related to ongoing legacy project funding. I have an outstanding view of how that works when you propose anything new that threatens established investment. Bottom line is we have a lot to learn and even getting a lesson plan can be a challenge. The concept of "unconvincing" before even looking is what every funding request has to overcome.
|
|
|
Post by af4ex on Nov 18, 2010 3:01:22 GMT
(Notes while reading Arrhenius) I'm reading "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" and am surprised how "modern" the writings and findings seem to be, 114 years later.
For example, in posing the main question of the article he writes: "Another side of the question, that has long attracted the attention of physicists, is this: Is the mean temperature of the ground in any way influenced by the presence of heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere?"
I don't think this would be stated any differently today. Surprising in fact that back in 1896 he noted this question had 'long attracted the attention of physicists'.
Who were these physicists? Fourier of course, and others, who first proposed the greenhouse effect.
He even proposes the oceans as the control knob ("regulator") of CO2 in the atmosphere! "The ocean, too, plays an important role as a regulator of the quantity of carbonic acid in the air by means of the absorptive power of its water, which gives off carbonic acid as its temperature rises and absorbs it as it cools."
He notes that some of his contemporaries regard CO2 to be more influential than water vapor, but Arrhenius himself regarded water vapor as more influential.
His understanding of the specific actions and values for the absorption bands for CO2 and water are essentially the same as today, with respect to the black body radiation models of the Sun and Earth.
How could he even detect and measure the absorption spectrum of these "dark rays" (infra-red)?
He relied mainly on the work of Samuel Langley, a decade earlier, who used a rock-salt prism and who had invented an incredibly sensitive "bolometer" to measure (electronically) the intensity of infra-red rays reflected by the Moon from the Sun. Long before the invention of the vacuum tube and "modern" electronic sensory devices.
Totally amazing, like an episode out the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, those 19th century scientists.
|
|
|
Post by hunterson on Nov 18, 2010 5:04:16 GMT
(Notes while reading Arrhenius) I'm reading "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" and am surprised how "modern" the writings and findings seem to be, 114 years later. For example, in posing the main question of the article he writes: "Another side of the question, that has long attracted the attention of physicists, is this: Is the mean temperature of the ground in any way influenced by the presence of heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere?" I don't think this would be stated any differently today. Surprising in fact that back in 1896 he noted this question had 'long attracted the attention of physicists'. Who were these physicists? Fourier of course, and others, who first proposed the greenhouse effect. He even proposes that the oceans as the control knob ("regulator") of CO2 in the atmosphere! "The ocean, too, plays an important role as a regulator of the quantity of carbonic acid in the air by means of the absorptive power of its water, which gives off carbonic acid as its temperature rises and absorbs it as it cools." He notes that some of his contemporaries regard CO2 to be more influential than water vapor, but Arrhenius himself regarded water vapor as more influential. His understanding of the specific actions and values for the absorption bands for CO2 and water are essentially the same as today, with respect to the black body radiation models of the Sun and Earth. How could he even detect and measure the absorption spectrum of these "dark rays" (infra-red)? He relied mainly on the work of Samuel Langley, a decade earlier, who used a rock-salt prism and who had invented an incredibly sensitive "bolometer" to measure (electronically) the intensity of infra-red rays reflected by the Moon from the Sun. Long before the invention of the vacuum tube and "modern" electronic sensory devices. Totally amazing, like an episode out the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, those 19th century scientists. Just remember he was a man, and not some sort of immaculate font of wisdom. He pushed eugenics laws, based on evolution, like crazy.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Nov 18, 2010 6:43:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 18, 2010 7:33:52 GMT
Yeah, we see examples of how we could be wrong within our own solar system (and mars has WAY less stuff going on to impact climate) yet all we get from these climate scientists is more of their hubris
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 18, 2010 7:44:10 GMT
I do not find the explanations that link the current warming largely to ocean cycles compelling because I think the variability of the influence of the oceans is over-stated and the mechanisms unconvincing. WHAT mechanisms? No scientists has (to my knowledge) claimed to know how they work. The fact remains however that the cycles show a correlation with temperature during the interglacial that CO2 fails to show at all. They also (especially the PDO) have an ability to DIRECTLY change the behavior of water vapor in the climate system. Since models have COMPLETELY FAILED to explain the water vapor changes (true falsification of the models, BTW) it would make FAR more sense to look at other systems than it would to cling to a hypothesis that isn't working.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 18, 2010 11:03:42 GMT
a4fex www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm"]]http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm May give you more historical perspective. hunter, Of course he was a man. That's why his work on eugenics has been rejected because it was based on incorrect science and led to evil outcomes, while his work on greenhouse gases is still regarded as the part of the foundation of the science. Newton was another person with some funny ideas and some great ideas.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 18, 2010 11:26:38 GMT
There is no good observational correlation that supports the view that the oceans are a key driver of rising temperatures.
Clearly the oceans influence the weather, and if the oceans were able to radically redistribute their energy, their impact on the weather and climate would be huge. But the interface between the oceans and the atmosphere is the key driver - sea surface temperatures, current, salinity and so forth. I believe that if you ran an atmosphere model with the sea surface conditions fixed by observational data you would be able to study the *possible* influences of the ocean.
Examples of such experiments are the AMIP runs which run multiple atmosphere models using the same ocean datasets. Richard Lindzen's recent paper analysed these runs and purported to find a negative feedback in the data that did not appear in the models. These results were checked by other scientists who concluded that Lindzen's results were not robust, and that the model results were quite reasonable.
I am not saying that the models are therefore correct. What I am saying is that there is no model evidence that the PDO drives atmosphere temperatures and there is no correlation between ocean cycles and temperature.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 18, 2010 12:18:12 GMT
There is no good observational correlation that supports the view that the oceans are a key driver of rising temperatures.
|
|