|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2013 18:30:08 GMT
Point 1 of Tisdale was truly stupid - pretending that Nuccitelli was talking about the Pacific because the sub-editor of the Guardian used a picture of the Earth that happens to show the Pacific. Point 2 was pretty weak because Nuccitelli does not claim that AGW causes ENSO. Point 3 is dumb. Nuccitelli says warm water has gone deep. Tisdale says cool water has gone shallow. Hardly a rebuttal. In Tisdale's "attack" of the escalator he simply repeats the escalator and then uses Nuccitelli's arguments to explain why the escalator is a more "real" representation of temperatures. But we're still in need of an explanation for the upward steps. So the only difference between Nuccitelli and Tisdale is that Nucittelli believes that the steady warming effect of CO2 is moderated by ENSO such that it may look like an escalator, and Tisdale believes that the clouds kindly open to send warmth into the oceans then the oceans kindly open to spread warmth into the rest of the planet.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2013 18:13:22 GMT
Go on then. Tell us what you think is wrong with it. Because it reached into an area where scientists are in deep disagreement and cherry picks an answer from the most extreme point of view. How is that for starters? Because sigurdur has already pointed out that it is an op ed that responds to an unbalanced article with a personal opinion. What is wrong with it (apart from it being an op ed).
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2013 17:17:00 GMT
sigurdur
I'm not sure what thermodynamic laws you are using, but they aren't from this universe (and some would argue they aren't from any universe. You cannot make cold air out of warm water without inputting extra energy and dumping the energy you use plus the energy you remove from the air somewhere else.
So this argument against a warmer atmosphere tending to result in the ocean getting warmer is entirely faulty.
The radiative energy from the atmosphere goes into the ocean. Even if it goes in 1mm or 1 micron you cannot vanish it away with homely stories about what you say you do on your farm. Also you cannot vanish away the conduction, the exchange of gases, the exchange of liquid or the exchange of vapour all of which will tend to result in the ocean warming as the atmosphere warms.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2013 16:56:41 GMT
There are so many things wrong with this op-ed piece.......but the authors suffer greatly from the syndrome. Go on then. Tell us what you think is wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2013 16:45:05 GMT
Steve, It doesn’t surprise me that not all regional proxy temperature measurements support a global MWP. If one were to collect every current independent thermometer based temperature record, would every collected dataset support the current value of the HADCRUT4 global mean? - many NH datasets wouldn’t (or Antarctic), including the MET Offices CET data – does this then invalidate the current claims of a global warming – nope. Indeed not! Which is why Steve McIntyre would quite often be able to find a questionable looking surface station dataset to place before his minions - until the surfacestations project hit the Muller buffers that is. That is why you have to look at lots of pieces of evidence, not just a few. And if you are, for example, trying to compare with the recent 30-50 years, you should look at each 30-50 year period of the past in isolation (as far as can be managed given the resolution of some proxies). There is a tendency to compare the recent 30-50 (or even 100 year) average with the *peak* of any Medieval reference. In short, this is the point I am making.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 24, 2013 16:31:31 GMT
cuttydyer,
This is a bit of a hand-waving statement from Dr Whoishe?
What data does the good Dr think Mann relied upon to give the cold blob? If the cold blob were slightly warmer what impact would it have on the Hockey stick shape (very little I'd guess)? Given the wide differences between the lakes studied in this paper, are they very good temperature proxies?
And any comments on the paper I found that appears to support a cold period in Tibet 1000 years ago?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 24, 2013 16:24:44 GMT
Steve: 1st I am not convinced that the OHC has had a dramatic increase. Be careful what you wish for. If the ocean has not yet warmed in response to the atmosphere warming, then there is a lot more atmosphere warming to come when the ocean catches up. But you haven't said whether you believe a warmer atmosphere will result in the ocean getting warmer due to causes other than the "penetrative power" (whatever that means) of the LW. Which bands? And by how much (in Watts, not percentage)? I think the ones that vary are the ones that don't penetrate the atmosphere much. So something you can't measure should be considered whereas something you can should not? Hmmm...sounds like argumentum ad backsidecovering Certainly better. But the XBT measurements show lower OHC even when you account for their relative shortcomings. You also have not explained the acceleration of sea level rise which backs up the OHC rise.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 24, 2013 12:04:04 GMT
"The problem that you and magellan are having is that if it is hard (but not impossible) to get radiation into water, it is also hard to get radiation *out* of the water. Furthermore, if the radiation is warming the surface, then there will be a net increase in downward conduction of heat." Steve: No, it is not hard at all to get radiation out of the water. The wave length of CO2 is so long that it has no penetrative energy. You know that as well as I do. Even at 40F, water can and does freeze as the evaporation of the water is faster than the ability of water to absorb heat from the air. In fact, using H20 vapor, a process called sharp freeze is done. I use evaporative water all the time in my spud house to cool it. I know that you must know that CO2 is not capable of directly affecting the temperature of a body of water. Simple physics it is. There seems to be a strange fixation on a direct link between CO2 and ocean heat content. It seems perfectly obvious to me when I go to the sea side, that the ocean and the atmosphere are connected together. If the atmosphere were to warm up (which it has done) it would influence the ocean in many ways. Rain would be warmer, molecules transferring between atmosphere and ocean (water evaporating and condensing, gases being absorbed) would be more energetic, the warmer air would conduct heat to the ocean. The radiation that is absorbed in the top of the ocean cannot not be ignored even if it is only 1 micron, but it is one, maybe small, part. Since the ocean heat content is rising, something is providing the energy. It's not the Sun because the TSI would have had to increase an enormous amount(and you cannot use the "don't focus on TSI" argument here because we are discussing solar incidence at the surface of the ocean). You cannot say "recovery from the LIA" because it's a meaningless statement. So what do you think is causing the ocean heat content to rise and the sea levels to rise if it isn't caused by the warmer atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 23, 2013 20:26:37 GMT
magellan,
So you know that he treats people who don't believe in the greenhouse effect like one might treat a slightly deluded elderly relative.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 23, 2013 20:23:46 GMT
magellan: CO2 warming of the oceans has to be accomplished via a secondary method. The wavelength of CO2 does not penetrate water more than a few microns. It is well known that the evaporation of the water occurs faster than the heat transfer. Steve has to know this, if he doesn't he can certainly learn this. A .3C rise in air temps is not a large contributing factor in regards to heat retention of the oceans. Now, what IS known to affect the OHC is the sun because the energy penetrates so deeply all the time. So the wavelength of CO2 penetrates water. Thanks for clearing that up. The problem that you and magellan are having is that if it is hard (but not impossible) to get radiation into water, it is also hard to get radiation *out* of the water. Furthermore, if the radiation is warming the surface, then there will be a net increase in downward conduction of heat.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 23, 2013 12:56:29 GMT
The evidence of the rising heat content of the ocean is the "smoking gun" of the global energy imbalance - what I just said to flearider. The global energy imbalance is a prediction of the CO2 theory - the basic physics tells you to *expect* an energy imbalance, the models predict the effects of the imbalance, and the observations *demonstrate* the imbalance. Going back to your comment about the oceans being the apparent primary warmer of the land rather than CO2. I think you misunderstand. In absence of a variable climate the CO2 signal would be a relatively steady rise in temperatures. The ocean variability swamps the signal in the short term which is why one might say that land temperatures are governed by the ocean state. But saying that is like saying that the temperature of your house is governed by the temperature of the radiators and that it therefore has nothing to do with your central heating boiler. Do we really need to dig up the OHC discussions again? You still have not provided the equations for how CO2 via back radiation can account for any measurable amount of heat accumulated in the oceans over the past 50 years. Zero, zilch, nada as the saying goes. Where did I say that CO2 via back radiation is the only direct cause of heat accumulation in the oceans over the past 50 years? Next strawman please.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 23, 2013 12:49:18 GMT
icefisher,
I accept what all of these sceptic scientist say: that the effect of increasing CO2 will be to raise temperatures. I also accept it when they say that you cannot categorically say that you know how much temperatures will rise. I further accept that some of their reasons for believing that the rise will be lower are plausible.
That old chestnut again. I've shown you with my code example why you are wrong about what "warmists" have "resorted to". You and magellan should go over to Roy Spencer's blog and discuss the GH effect with him.
Roy's explanations of the subject are absolutely superb - clear and physically correct (unlike many basic descriptions of the greenhouse effect). The skill with reading Roy's blog is to spot the bit between him providing reasonable explanations of basic physics phenomena that underlie the basic understanding of the greenhouse effect, and the bit where he advocates his lukewarmer position based on his interpretation of the data.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 22, 2013 17:41:22 GMT
I'm not an expert at all. But given you've posted many thousands of posts here, you've been wasting your time if you don't know the basics of the position. A starting point would be a few physics primers that cover energy conservation, Planck radiation and so forth. After a bit you might be able to handle the concepts of a paper such as: New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases Gunnar Myhre1, Eleanor J. Highwood2, Keith P. Shine2, Frode Stordal3 Geophysical Research Letters Volume 25, Issue 14, pages 2715–2718, 15 July 1998 which lays out the reduction in outgoing long-wave radiation that is the result of raising levels of CO2. It's all pretty basic physics which isn't disputed by any sensible person with a basic physics background, even those who strongly dispute the importance of the impact such as Spencer, Christie, Lindzen and others. I think I've typed that about 200 times in my time here... You did not answer the question. Try again. Where is the evidence that rising CO2 levels are largely responsible for increasing OHC for the last 50 years. Does that help? I believe Hansen called it the "smoking gun" which ended up shooting blanks. The evidence of the rising heat content of the ocean is the "smoking gun" of the global energy imbalance - what I just said to flearider. The global energy imbalance is a prediction of the CO2 theory - the basic physics tells you to *expect* an energy imbalance, the models predict the effects of the imbalance, and the observations *demonstrate* the imbalance. Going back to your comment about the oceans being the apparent primary warmer of the land rather than CO2. I think you misunderstand. In absence of a variable climate the CO2 signal would be a relatively steady rise in temperatures. The ocean variability swamps the signal in the short term which is why one might say that land temperatures are governed by the ocean state. But saying that is like saying that the temperature of your house is governed by the temperature of the radiators and that it therefore has nothing to do with your central heating boiler.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 22, 2013 17:29:27 GMT
The comparison is between normal temperature air and slightly warmer air. If you accept that the warmer air will transfer a "little heat" to the water then you are almost there. In a relatively closed system, the heat can only be dissipated into the rest of the ocean or back into the air again. whoa "the heat can only be dissipated into the rest of the ocean or back into the air again" and into space ? where most of it should go ? so at night you have.. ocean/air /space as theres no sun and in the day you have sun /air/ocean/air /space and of course theres the land which gives up heat slower than the water .. the earth i would not call a closed system .. but if your talking inside a lab/classroom then yes .. but there 2 totally diffrent things .. Neither the land nor the ocean "gives up" all of its heat at night otherwise, of course, we'd freeze to death. The rate of cooling of the land and the ocean is moderated by the atmosphere. Add more CO2 and you moderate the rate of cooling just a bit more such that you should expect some warming relative to what you had without the extra CO2.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 21, 2013 19:30:12 GMT
Magellan, The heat capacity of CO2 has very little to do with the greenhouse effect. The rest of your argument is equally silly. And have you ever taken a cold drink into a sauna - it doesn't stay cold for long. All you need to do is provide the calculations quantifying how much rising CO2 levels warms the oceans. Doing so would validate your criticisms and I'll be the fool. I've only been asking for this information for at least a year. Come on man, you're the expert here, cough it up. I'm not an expert at all. But given you've posted many thousands of posts here, you've been wasting your time if you don't know the basics of the position. A starting point would be a few physics primers that cover energy conservation, Planck radiation and so forth. After a bit you might be able to handle the concepts of a paper such as: New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases Gunnar Myhre1, Eleanor J. Highwood2, Keith P. Shine2, Frode Stordal3 Geophysical Research Letters Volume 25, Issue 14, pages 2715–2718, 15 July 1998 which lays out the reduction in outgoing long-wave radiation that is the result of raising levels of CO2. It's all pretty basic physics which isn't disputed by any sensible person with a basic physics background, even those who strongly dispute the importance of the impact such as Spencer, Christie, Lindzen and others. I think I've typed that about 200 times in my time here...
|
|