|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2008 15:35:27 GMT
Nautonnier, I think I see what you are saying.
However, the "rearrangement of the heat" from ENSO, PDO etc. is as important as CO2 changes in the short term, because the earth loses a lot of its heat from the mid to upper troposphere.
If the heat is "rearranged" such that more heat is being transferred into the oceans (eg. in a La Niña) the net effect is that the atmosphere is cooler - yet the heat content is going up (if the amount of solar radiation being absorbed is approximately the same.)
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2008 16:00:13 GMT
Nautonnier, I think I see what you are saying. However, the "rearrangement of the heat" from ENSO, PDO etc. is as important as CO2 changes in the short term, because the earth loses a lot of its heat from the mid to upper troposphere. If the heat is "rearranged" such that more heat is being transferred into the oceans (eg. in a La Niña) the net effect is that the atmosphere is cooler - yet the heat content is going up (if the amount of solar radiation being absorbed is approximately the same.) *if* one assumes that La Nina is heat being transferred to the oceans - the Argo floats and deep ocean robots are reporting cooling. But yes a El Nino vents heat into space from the ocean via atmospheric convection and other weather and radiation. Steve and I have almost agreed!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2008 16:09:10 GMT
Nautonnier, I think I see what you are saying. However, the "rearrangement of the heat" from ENSO, PDO etc. is as important as CO2 changes in the short term, because the earth loses a lot of its heat from the mid to upper troposphere. If the heat is "rearranged" such that more heat is being transferred into the oceans (eg. in a La Niña) the net effect is that the atmosphere is cooler - yet the heat content is going up (if the amount of solar radiation being absorbed is approximately the same.) *if* one assumes that La Nina is heat being transferred to the oceans - the Argo floats and deep ocean robots are reporting cooling. The latest published data from the ARGO array that I've seen is from before the start of the La Niña. I've also been keeping an eye on sea levels (which combines measurements of land-ice melt + thermal expansion (or vice versa). sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpgThis is *possibly* hinting at a reversion to a 3mm per year upward trend since late 2007, but there is not enough data to say this really.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 2, 2008 16:11:38 GMT
Nautonnier, I think I see what you are saying. However, the "rearrangement of the heat" from ENSO, PDO etc. is as important as CO2 changes in the short term, because the earth loses a lot of its heat from the mid to upper troposphere. If the heat is "rearranged" such that more heat is being transferred into the oceans (eg. in a La Niña) the net effect is that the atmosphere is cooler - yet the heat content is going up (if the amount of solar radiation being absorbed is approximately the same.) *if* one assumes that La Nina is heat being transferred to the oceans - the Argo floats and deep ocean robots are reporting cooling. But yes a El Nino vents heat into space from the ocean via atmospheric convection and other weather and radiation. Steve and I have almost agreed! This is true, and when solar radiation reaching the oceans does not replenish this heat, there can be no "global" warming. As such, OHC continues to wane and at some point will drop like a rock as the ocean depths move the heat to the surface. This is why using SST is not a good metric because it is based on the top layer of water which like land surface varies often. The message is in the lower depths, which will be reflected in SST over time, and then land. OHC gain and loss is a slow process so therefore can be viewed at any time as a snapshot of what is really going on. The 3000 Argo floats does not give complete spacial coverage, but is much improved over the old methods. The majority of research into cloud dynamics is being done by Roy Spencer at UAH, and this is in large part where AGW fallacy rests. Climate models are nothing more than numerical expressions of the assumptions of the programmers. If knowledge of key components of the climate system are left out or erroneous, the output will be as well. This is my major beef with climate models. IPCC AR4 clearly states a low understanding of cloud dynamics and solar, yet claim they have enough information to conclude man is responsible for most of 20th warming. It is junk science. Also keep in mind water vapor feedback, which must be strongly positive in order for AGW to come to fruition, is now being demonstrated by satellite data to behave exactly opposite predicted by climate models. www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#research-update-2
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2008 16:21:27 GMT
The majority of research into cloud dynamics is being done by Roy Spencer at UAH, and this is in large part where AGW fallacy rests. Climate models are nothing more than numerical expressions of the assumptions of the programmers. If knowledge of key components of the climate system are left out or erroneous, the output will be as well. This is my major beef with climate models. IPCC AR4 clearly states a low understanding of cloud dynamics and solar, yet claim they have enough information to conclude man is responsible for most of 20th warming. It is junk science. Yes I was searching for information on cloud dynamics and turbulence for totally unrelated research. I was extremely surprised to find out how little is actually known. The amount of energy in a single storm is immense . As one weather researcher put it to me - if you get a 5 kw kettle and boil it till the steam fills the room... perhaps 20 mins to boil dry... imagine how much energy it took to build a storm 20 miles across and 8 miles high.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 2, 2008 16:23:22 GMT
The majority of research into cloud dynamics is being done by Roy Spencer at UAH, and this is in large part where AGW fallacy rests. Climate models are nothing more than numerical expressions of the assumptions of the programmers. If knowledge of key components of the climate system are left out or erroneous, the output will be as well. This is my major beef with climate models. IPCC AR4 clearly states a low understanding of cloud dynamics and solar, yet claim they have enough information to conclude man is responsible for most of 20th warming. It is junk science. Yes I was searching for information on cloud dynamics and turbulence for totally unrelated research. I was extremely surprised to find out how little is actually known. The amount of energy in a single storm is immense . As one weather researcher put it to me - if you get a 5 kw kettle and boil it till the steam fills the room... perhaps 20 mins to boil dry... imagine how much energy it took to build a storm 20 miles across and 8 miles high. I edited my previous post to include research update #2 from Spencer www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#research-update-2Particularly interesting for Socold is the statement: The results are, as you can see below, somewhat stunning...NONE of the five year periods from ANY of the IPCC climate models show the negative feedback behavior seen in the satellite data:
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 2, 2008 16:45:03 GMT
This bit from the Roy Spencer link is a big shift of ground from him:
We seem to be continuously exhorted by Roy Spencer that there is (must be) a negative feedback to warming in the atmosphere. The fact that first his satellite measurements of temperature are wrong, and then his belief in a negative longwave feedback is also wrong doesn't stop his confidence in his next idea.
Now I'm all for scientific exploration into the doubts and uncertainties. But I'm against *assuming* that all the doubts and uncertainties *must* mean there is nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2008 18:09:47 GMT
And he was/is wrong on evolution: www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805ISome people will say "hey that's not fair, that doesn't mean he's wrong on climate". But I have genuine trouble not treating that article as a warning sign.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Nov 2, 2008 21:37:07 GMT
This bit from the Roy Spencer link is a big shift of ground from him: We seem to be continuously exhorted by Roy Spencer that there is (must be) a negative feedback to warming in the atmosphere. The fact that first his satellite measurements of temperature are wrong, and then his belief in a negative longwave feedback is also wrong doesn't stop his confidence in his next idea. Now I'm all for scientific exploration into the doubts and uncertainties. But I'm against *assuming* that all the doubts and uncertainties *must* mean there is nothing to worry about. If Jim Hansen's GISS was actually audited for accuracy, there is a very good chance it would be "wrong" as well. Of course, many would say this has already been established.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Nov 2, 2008 21:47:50 GMT
And he was/is wrong on evolution: www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805ISome people will say "hey that's not fair, that doesn't mean he's wrong on climate". But I have genuine trouble not treating that article as a warning sign. There is no way to prove someone is "wrong" on evolution. You can prove someone is wrong if they claim the sun revolves around the earth, or that the earth is flat. But there is no way to prove that the current theory of evolution is absolutely right. Evolution is simply widely considered to be the best explanation for the development of life on earth - but it is not provable.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 3, 2008 0:13:54 GMT
Close, but a bit vague
There is no way to experimentally prove/disprove things that happened in the past. This covers past climate change, the many theories of evolution, creation, the existence/non existence of God(s) etc.
In all these areas we need to accept that we have learned or have an innate bias from our education, upbringing and the ways our brains are wired! Which all means that we should respect each others vewpoints.
While having a robust discussion, and taking the mickey out of each other! ;D
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Nov 3, 2008 1:34:51 GMT
Close, but a bit vague There is no way to experimentally prove/disprove things that happened in the past. This covers past climate change, the many theories of evolution, creation, the existence/non existence of God(s) etc. In all these areas we need to accept that we have learned or have an innate bias from our education, upbringing and the ways our brains are wired! Which all means that we should respect each others vewpoints. While having a robust discussion, and taking the mickey out of each other! ;D "...and the ways our brains are wired... " Funny you should put it that way. Cogito, ergo sum! You realize, of course, that when it comes right down to it, both the creationist and the evolutionist have the very same problem in explaining the origins of consciousness and existence. Perhaps it's true that the passion of the evolutionist is derived from his rejection of the idea of owing his existence, and therefore some responsibility and gratitude, to the Supreme Being who created him, but that still doesn't negate the question of origin. Back to the brain... astronomers were expecting the arrangement of the bits and pieces of the Universe to be somewhat... chaotic, due to the Big Bang. Surprised they were to discover recently that there's quite an interesting structure in the arrangement of the stars and galaxies. In fact, it resembles that of a brain cell: centripetalnotion.com/2006/09/04/00:23:27/
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Nov 3, 2008 5:02:32 GMT
Some interesting data coming through on weather predictions; "“I have (weather) charts from the year dot, back prior to the Industrial Revolution. “I am disgusted with what we are putting into the atmosphere but I believe the climate change debate is too politically driven.” Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) data tends to cautiously support Mr Walker’s predictions, indicating the chances of exceeding average rainfall between now and March is 50%. The BOM website said the Southern Oscillation Index has been at +14 – a strong La Nina influence – pointing to more rain likelihood, with the same conditions predicted for the remainder of spring and summer." www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/nov/02/here-comes-rain/www.worldweather.com.au/Sun.htm"The Madden-Julian Oscillation, or MJO, is a band of low air pressure which originates off the east coast of central Africa travelling eastward across the Indian Ocean and northern Australia roughly every 30 to 60 days. Because of the timing of the MJO the phenomenon is also known as the forty day wave. It can be used as an indicator for the timing of potential rainfall events. The MJO influences rainfall across Australia. The impact of the MJO on rainfall varies between the different seasons and location. For example the MJO has a greater influence of rainfall throughout northern Australia during summer and southern Australia during winter. " www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/OutlookMessage/index.htmlWith the cooling PDO it looks like wetter and colder for Australia and dryer and colder for the US
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 3, 2008 5:07:41 GMT
The weather bureau says Queenslanders should begin preparations for this year's cyclone season. Bureau of Meteorology regional director Jim Davidson says the water temperature in northern Australia is warmer than usual indicating a La Nina weather system is forming. www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/20/2395929.htmWith another la nina forming how does that affect the northern hemisphere winter? Can La Nina's form in continental regions only? I was under the impression it was hemisphere wide. Who can answer that?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 3, 2008 5:22:17 GMT
|
|