|
Post by socold on Sept 19, 2009 16:09:22 GMT
Kiwistonewall requested this not be discussed in his ice thread, so it will be posted here. If you want to believe the jackals at ReinventedClimate, that's your prerogative. I've seen too much disinformation and flat out lies from that motley crew to ever take anything they say as factual/ Well that's a shame because many skeptics could benefit from understanding what things like climate sensitivity, climate feedbacks and radiative forcing are and the relationship between them. RealClimate is perhaps the only blog that explains these concepts nicely. These were all long ago posts, they've pretty much run through all those concepts by now. That paper has nothing to do with my statement which was a criticism of the suggestion that physics doesn't show faster warming in the tropical upper troposphere. If physics didn't lead to that conclusion, someone would have incorporated such physics into the models by now and the models wouldn't show that conclusion either. The paper puts forward an argument that observations don't line up with the expectation from physics. It doesn't put forward a corrected physics that is compatible.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 19, 2009 19:03:26 GMT
But as for OHC, it's upward rise over past decades was due to more energy coming in than out, which is attributable to the positive planetary energy imbalance caused by rising greenhouse gases The problem is Socold is the models show a steady rise in OHC and instead we had a steep rise followed by a decline in OHC. . . .suggesting a variable function instead of a continuously increasing forcing. Since the primary case of the effect of rising CO2, and the estimation of future increases, was based upon the first 20 of those 30 years and the following 10 years did not track; there are fundamental flaws in the models that need to be corrected before anybody should consider using them.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 19, 2009 20:46:20 GMT
The problem is Socold is the models show a steady rise in OHC and instead we had a steep rise followed by a decline in OHC. . . .suggesting a variable function instead of a continuously increasing forcing.
When was this "decline in OHC"?
Since the primary case of the effect of rising CO2, and the estimation of future increases, was based upon the first 20 of those 30 years and the following 10 years did not track; there are fundamental flaws in the models that need to be corrected before anybody should consider using them.
The models are far from perfect, but all current evidence suggests that they are pointing in the right direction. We've had all sorts of factors put forward recently which are supposed to produce global cooling ....PDO, AMO, NAO, solar minimum, solar grand minimum etc, yet global temperatures remain stubbornly high. I'd be a little bit concerned what might happen when these natural factors favour warming again.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 19, 2009 21:18:26 GMT
The models are far from perfect, but all current evidence suggests that they are pointing in the right direction. We've had all sorts of factors put forward recently which are supposed to produce global cooling ....PDO, AMO, NAO, solar minimum, solar grand minimum etc, yet global temperatures remain stubbornly high. I'd be a little bit concerned what might happen when these natural factors favour warming again.
I will tell you exactly what will happen when conditions favor warming again: Things will warm up. Then, when conditions favor cooling, I will tell you what will happen: Things will cool down. That is what has happened, and that is what will happen. AGW true believers can confabulate and impose all of the dire meanings they want. The climate will continue to ignore us all.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 19, 2009 21:48:16 GMT
The models are far from perfect, but all current evidence suggests that they are pointing in the right direction. We've had all sorts of factors put forward recently which are supposed to produce global cooling ....PDO, AMO, NAO, solar minimum, solar grand minimum etc, yet global temperatures remain stubbornly high. I'd be a little bit concerned what might happen when these natural factors favour warming again. The models are pointing in the opposite direction of the ARGO floats and for that matter the atmosphere. Solar grand minimum? LOL! You are maybe about 3 or 4 solar cycles early on that call Bub!!! But there is certainly nothing new from you on that sort of speculation. The solar grand maximum is not yet entirely put to bed as cycle 20 was relatively low. . . .who knows what is going to happen next? And why should I be concerned? Most of my concern these days is centered on what the do-gooders are going to mess up next.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 20, 2009 3:14:14 GMT
The models are far from perfect, but all current evidence suggests that they are pointing in the right direction. We've had all sorts of factors put forward recently which are supposed to produce global cooling ....PDO, AMO, NAO, solar minimum, solar grand minimum etc, yet global temperatures remain stubbornly high. I'd be a little bit concerned what might happen when these natural factors favour warming again. The models are pointing in the opposite direction of the ARGO floats and for that matter the atmosphere. Solar grand minimum? LOL! You are maybe about 3 or 4 solar cycles early on that call Bub!!! But there is certainly nothing new from you on that sort of speculation. The solar grand maximum is not yet entirely put to bed as cycle 20 was relatively low. . . .who knows what is going to happen next? And why should I be concerned? Most of my concern these days is centered on what the do-gooders are going to mess up next. Meanwhile NOAA is cooking the books to provide cover for political initiatives designed to move forward with Cap N' Trade. Just like the government to spend billions on satellites and ARGO bouys and then not use the data they produce when releasing "official government" temperature stats. But it sure mollifies the AGW cult members.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 20, 2009 8:17:54 GMT
I will tell you exactly what will happen when conditions favor warming again: Things will warm up. Then, when conditions favor cooling, I will tell you what will happen: Things will cool down. That is what has happened, and that is what will happen.
But how much will it "cool down" and how much will it "warm up". It's all very well using these 'cycle' arguments, but that should mean we end up where we started, i.e. each warm period should peak at roughly the same level and each cold period should peakat roughly the same level
But that's not what's happening is it?
Each warm period has been warmer than the previous warm period and each cold period has been warmer than the previous cold period. In fact the next cold period (if we actually get one) will almost certainly be warmer than the 1930s/40s warm period.
Slightly contrary to what I thought 12 months ago, I'm now not sure we'll get a cooling period. We might get a 'flat' period but I tend to agree with those who say that once it's over temperatures will pick up pretty sharply.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 20, 2009 8:42:20 GMT
The models are pointing in the opposite direction of the ARGO floats and for that matter the atmosphere.
The first few years of ARGO float measurements suggest no trend in OHC. This does not contradict the models. It may be that the models don't include everything and there will, therefore, be periods where there is less agreement, but as ocean fluctuations tend to be oscillatory these things tend to even out.
Solar grand minimum? LOL! You are maybe about 3 or 4 solar cycles early on that call Bub!!! But there is certainly nothing new from you on that sort of speculation.
Have we not now entered a new grand minimum - comparable to the the Dalton and possibly even the Maunder. Are we not about to experience extreme cold and crop failure as outlined by Landscheidt, Archibald and others. Sorry - my mistake. It's just that I'm not well versed in the darker arts of solar prediction.
Does it get warmer or colder when Jupiter aligns with Mars.
See - completely hopeless. Please don't "LOL". Can't you just try to educate me instead.
The solar grand maximum is not yet entirely put to bed as cycle 20 was relatively low. . . .who knows what is going to happen next?
Ok - tell me what happens in a solar grand maximum that makes things warmer than in other periods. It's just that I notice that the sun's output (TSI) hasn't varied hugely over the past century - or even the past ~400 years for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2009 10:03:34 GMT
Solar grand minimum? LOL! You are maybe about 3 or 4 solar cycles early on that call Bub!!! But there is certainly nothing new from you on that sort of speculation. Have we not now entered a new grand minimum - comparable to the the Dalton and possibly even the Maunder. Are we not about to experience extreme cold and crop failure as outlined by Landscheidt, Archibald and others. Sorry - my mistake. It's just that I'm not well versed in the darker arts of solar prediction. Its one thing to predict a solar grand minimum. But it is just plain stupid to expect any temperature results of it to be already observed in the global temperature record. The solar grand maximum is not yet entirely put to bed as cycle 20 was relatively low. . . .who knows what is going to happen next? Ok - tell me what happens in a solar grand maximum that makes things warmer than in other periods. It's just that I notice that the sun's output (TSI) hasn't varied hugely over the past century - or even the past ~400 years for that matter. So? Eliminating ignorance is mankinds challenge! But you can at least start with it did get warmer than it was during the last grand minimum. Thats a better record than the GCMs can claim over the past 10 years. . . .the solar grand maximum at least had a timely burp. You on the other hand are too quick in discounting it for not producing the results of a solar grand minimum before it is a solar grand minimum. But that doesn't surprise me. . . .you AGW folks have been all messed up on the cause and effect stuff from day one. . . .must be some sort of time warp stuff from too much Star Trek or something.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 20, 2009 12:09:48 GMT
The problem is Socold is the models show a steady rise in OHC and instead we had a steep rise followed by a decline in OHC. . . .suggesting a variable function instead of a continuously increasing forcing.When was this "decline in OHC"? Since the primary case of the effect of rising CO2, and the estimation of future increases, was based upon the first 20 of those 30 years and the following 10 years did not track; there are fundamental flaws in the models that need to be corrected before anybody should consider using them.The models are far from perfect, but all current evidence suggests that they are pointing in the right direction. We've had all sorts of factors put forward recently which are supposed to produce global cooling ....PDO, AMO, NAO, solar minimum, solar grand minimum etc, yet global temperatures remain stubbornly high. I'd be a little bit concerned what might happen when these natural factors favour warming again. You've already seen the result of these factors going into warming mode. There wasn't much cooling in the 50's and 60's and then temperatures shot up for a bit after. Assuming a linear rate we'll only see another .5C by 2100. Assuming 100% of the warming period warming was from CO2 and projecting based on doubling of CO2 (which doesn't actually seem very likely) we'd see about .75C more warming. Its hardly an alarming figure. Really about the only thing the models potentially have right is the sign...everything else is just WAY off. Let's just hope that the fact that feedbacks are actually stronger in the COOLING direction doesn't screw us over once all the currents have gone negative and cooling has had time to set in. Warmer oceans in a cooling world has a lot of potential for cooling feedback (fog, snow, cloud cover, etc)
|
|
|
Post by boreas on Sept 20, 2009 20:10:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2009 20:50:14 GMT
The models are pointing in the opposite direction of the ARGO floats and for that matter the atmosphere.The first few years of ARGO float measurements suggest no trend in OHC. This does not contradict the models. It may be that the models don't include everything and there will, therefore, be periods where there is less agreement, but as ocean fluctuations tend to be oscillatory these things tend to even out. Solar grand minimum? LOL! You are maybe about 3 or 4 solar cycles early on that call Bub!!! But there is certainly nothing new from you on that sort of speculation. Have we not now entered a new grand minimum - comparable to the the Dalton and possibly even the Maunder. Are we not about to experience extreme cold and crop failure as outlined by Landscheidt, Archibald and others. Sorry - my mistake. It's just that I'm not well versed in the darker arts of solar prediction. Does it get warmer or colder when Jupiter aligns with Mars. See - completely hopeless. Please don't "LOL". Can't you just try to educate me instead. The solar grand maximum is not yet entirely put to bed as cycle 20 was relatively low. . . .who knows what is going to happen next? Ok - tell me what happens in a solar grand maximum that makes things warmer than in other periods. It's just that I notice that the sun's output (TSI) hasn't varied hugely over the past century - or even the past ~400 years for that matter. "Ok - tell me what happens in a solar grand maximum that makes things warmer than in other periods. It's just that I notice that the sun's output (TSI) hasn't varied hugely over the past century - or even the past ~400 years for that matter. "Well why don't you read Shaviv's paper or have you forgotten our discussion on it already? "Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing
Nir J. Shaviv Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Giv'at Ram, Jerusalem, Israel
Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one."Perhaps Lord Kelvin, there is something that we don't yet know? Fancy all that time screwing with the parameterizations of the models to force them to match reality - and all the time the real world was more complex with probably many unknown unknowns......
|
|
|
Post by glc on Sept 21, 2009 0:26:21 GMT
Well why don't you read Shaviv's paper or have you forgotten our discussion on it already?
I'm getting a bit confused. There are many on this blog who support the Lindzen and Spencer argument that climate sensitivity is low and any change in forcing is dampened by the climate system. In other words there is low or negative feedback. Shaviv seems to be suggesting the opposite, i.e. that climate sensitivity is high (very) and a change in forcing is amplified in some way.
Perhaps a change in solar forcing is different to other forcings. Is it ? If so - why is it?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 21, 2009 0:40:34 GMT
Well why don't you read Shaviv's paper or have you forgotten our discussion on it already?I'm getting a bit confused. There are many on this blog who support the Lindzen and Spencer argument that climate sensitivity is low and any change in forcing is dampened by the climate system. In other words there is low or negative feedback. Shaviv seems to be suggesting the opposite, i.e. that climate sensitivity is high (very) and a change in forcing is amplified in some way. Perhaps a change in solar forcing is different to other forcings. Is it ? If so - why is it? To assert a strong positive feedback climate is to believe in science fiction.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 21, 2009 0:43:59 GMT
By the way, socold asserts the following: "Well that's a shame because many skeptics could benefit from understanding what things like climate sensitivity, climate feedbacks and radiative forcing are and the relationship between them. RealClimate is perhaps the only blog that explains these concepts nicely. These were all long ago posts, they've pretty much run through all those concepts by now." What a load of utter bs. RC is a propaganda site that exists to sell AGW. RC is not about climate science. RC is about AGW. Schmidt is to climate science what Elizabeth Sanger was to evolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
|
|