|
Post by douglavers on Mar 27, 2017 20:39:05 GMT
[[For the doubters:
"Method 1) - Total energy released through cloud/rain formation: An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rainbands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 1016 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives 5.2 x 1019 Joules/day or 6.0 x 1014 Watts.
This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity - an incredible amount of energy produced!"]]
Nautonnier, Cyclone Debbie is forecast to produce around 40 cms of rain in quite a large area. Not sure how that fits with the above numbers.
Anyhow, it should be good for the Barrier Reef as it removes some of that excess warm water.
I am happy we do not have cyclones in Melbourne!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 27, 2017 21:20:40 GMT
Wow, now Mann is trying to take credit for Dr. Curry's stadium wave effect. When she wrote the paper, he said it was impossible!!! Interesting!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 27, 2017 23:35:58 GMT
[ Snip ] I am happy we do not have cyclones in Melbourne! Give it time .....
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 28, 2017 13:28:32 GMT
Large skepticism leads to large understanding. Small skepticism leads to small understanding. No skepticism leads to no understanding. -Anonymous
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 28, 2017 16:41:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 28, 2017 18:16:00 GMT
rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3229-xA decadal variance decomposition method is applied to the Northern Hemisphere (NH) 500-hPa geopotential height (GPH) and the sea level pressure (SLP) taken from the last millennium (850–1850 AD) experiment with the coupled climate model CCSM4, to estimate the contribution of the intra-decadal variability to the inter-decadal variability. By removing the intra-decadal variability from the total inter-decadal variability, the residual variability is more likely to be associated with slowly varying external forcings and slow-decadal climate processes, and therefore is referred to as slow-decadal variability.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 30, 2017 11:51:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Mar 31, 2017 3:33:59 GMT
The comment that the invalidation of the IPCC GHG Hypothesis via the tropical hot spot analysis was buried in a supplement was pretty blunt.
Some time in the next decade a lot of scientific reputations are going to be trashed.
In my view the IPCC GHG Hypothesis represents the largest and most costly scientific fraud ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 3, 2017 16:39:06 GMT
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1#Updated and improved satellite retrievals of the temperature of the mid-to-upper troposphere (TMT) are used to address key questions about the size and significance of TMT trends, agreement with model-derived TMT values, and whether models and satellite data show similar vertical profiles of warming. A recent study claimed that TMT trends over 1979 and 2015 are 3 times larger in climate models than in satellite data but did not correct for the contribution TMT trends receive from stratospheric cooling. Here, it is shown that the average ratio of modeled and observed TMT trends is sensitive to both satellite data uncertainties and model–data differences in stratospheric cooling. When the impact of lower-stratospheric cooling on TMT is accounted for, and when the most recent versions of satellite datasets are used, the previously claimed ratio of three between simulated and observed near-global TMT trends is reduced to approximately 1.7. Next, the validity of the statement that satellite data show no significant tropospheric warming over the last 18 years is assessed. This claim is not supported by the current analysis: in five out of six corrected satellite TMT records, significant global-scale tropospheric warming has occurred within the last 18 years. Finally, long-standing concerns are examined regarding discrepancies in modeled and observed vertical profiles of warming in the tropical atmosphere. It is shown that amplification of tropical warming between the lower and mid-to-upper troposphere is now in close agreement in the average of 37 climate models and in one updated satellite record.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 3, 2017 18:00:37 GMT
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1#Updated and improved satellite retrievals of the temperature of the mid-to-upper troposphere (TMT) are used to address key questions about the size and significance of TMT trends, agreement with model-derived TMT values, and whether models and satellite data show similar vertical profiles of warming. A recent study claimed that TMT trends over 1979 and 2015 are 3 times larger in climate models than in satellite data but did not correct for the contribution TMT trends receive from stratospheric cooling. Here, it is shown that the average ratio of modeled and observed TMT trends is sensitive to both satellite data uncertainties and model–data differences in stratospheric cooling. When the impact of lower-stratospheric cooling on TMT is accounted for, and when the most recent versions of satellite datasets are used, the previously claimed ratio of three between simulated and observed near-global TMT trends is reduced to approximately 1.7. Next, the validity of the statement that satellite data show no significant tropospheric warming over the last 18 years is assessed. This claim is not supported by the current analysis: in five out of six corrected satellite TMT records, significant global-scale tropospheric warming has occurred within the last 18 years. Finally, long-standing concerns are examined regarding discrepancies in modeled and observed vertical profiles of warming in the tropical atmosphere. It is shown that amplification of tropical warming between the lower and mid-to-upper troposphere is now in close agreement in the average of 37 climate models and in one updated satellite record. So by adjusting the measurements based on what they say in the stratosphere (multiplied by a fudge factor?) the tropospheric hotspot can suddenly be invented. Well what a surprise add a few more parameters and the elephant can wiggle its trunk.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 3, 2017 19:33:48 GMT
More than a few more parameters Naut...............way more it would seem.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 3, 2017 23:25:17 GMT
More than a few more parameters Naut...............way more it would seem. .... and it's not behind a paywall so everyone can read it. How democratic.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 4, 2017 0:51:12 GMT
Updated and improved satellite retrievals of the temperature of the mid-to-upper troposphere (TMT) are used to address key questions about the size and significance of TMT trends, agreement with model-derived TMT values, and whether models and satellite data show similar vertical profiles of warming. Well if they were public accountants they would need to continue to disclose the change in methodology in all reports for an appropriate period of time and Ben Santer himself has said that is 17 years or more. Just to see if they need to adjust it again. And what did they get out of that exercise? They managed to match up with the adjusted surface records which has the warming at about 1.75 degrees over the doubling of CO2. Well below the government action rate of 2 degrees. Wonder what they will say next year when Astromet's cooling kicks in.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 4, 2017 1:06:39 GMT
They will say it was CO2 induced.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 7, 2017 13:29:00 GMT
|
|