|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 4, 2009 19:20:56 GMT
Jim,
Can you give all us skeptics a definition of what the difference is between NORMAL chaotic weather and ANTHROPOGENIC chaotic weather.
Can you give us an index to track like 2 inches of rain divided by the hours that it fell in PLUS Samphir Simpson scale for Hurricanes times 25 PLUS the number of tornadoes times 5 PLUS the change in temps during a day divided the hours to change.
And then if you don't mind, can you back cast that about 1000 years or so.
Thanks, Dopey
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 4, 2009 20:01:56 GMT
dopey dog. I have no idea if I am the Jim you are asking, but if I am, I have no idea why you have asked me. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 4, 2009 20:16:19 GMT
Jim, Can you give all us skeptics a definition of what the difference is between NORMAL chaotic weather and ANTHROPOGENIC chaotic weather. Can you give us an index to track like 2 inches of rain divided by the hours that it fell in PLUS Samphir Simpson scale for Hurricanes times 25 PLUS the number of tornadoes times 5 PLUS the change in temps during a day divided the hours to change. And then if you don't mind, can you back cast that about 1000 years or so. Thanks, Dopey Sorry that was meant for the furrycathearder
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 4, 2009 23:54:22 GMT
New cause found for Global Cooling/Warming: There is a suspected link between the number of posts on Climate related web sites and Global cooling/Warming. This is confusing scientists who see warming near the Google & other data centres from all the Internet use, and cooling elsewhere. The more posts, the colder/hotter it gets. Obviously, this is a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: The observer changes the thing observed by the process of observation. Like the phenomena of Schrodinger's Cat, the climate is neither warm or cold until we observe it! physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2815So to maintain the acceptable climate of the planet and to prevent the next Ice Age/Heat Death, we must immediately stop posting on this & every other web site. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 5, 2009 1:40:57 GMT
We can keep posting, but there will be a carboncopy tax imposed on both the producer of the post as well as anyone who reads the posts.
To further a regulation of the posts made, there will be a caps lock and trade scheme implemented. Use of the shift key may be permitted when....blah blah blah
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 5, 2009 15:49:00 GMT
Jim, Can you give all us skeptics a definition of what the difference is between NORMAL chaotic weather and ANTHROPOGENIC chaotic weather. Can you give us an index to track like 2 inches of rain divided by the hours that it fell in PLUS Samphir Simpson scale for Hurricanes times 25 PLUS the number of tornadoes times 5 PLUS the change in temps during a day divided the hours to change. And then if you don't mind, can you back cast that about 1000 years or so. Thanks, Dopey I'm not a meterologist or climate scientist, and I'm not being paid by you, so watch it wit the demands. I think the easiest way to demonstrate that "chaotic climate" is happening here and now is the record extremes. Statistically, we should have fewer and fewer records over time -- that's the nature of statistics. And yet we keep having records -- longest drought, heaviest rain / flood, hottest summer, etc. You mentioned hurricanes -- look at the recent seasons versus previous seasons on record. There is a very clear increase (but not monotonic, as the warmies would claim) in the number of named storms. Likewise, there are prolonged droughts in areas that were never subject to drought, and then massive rains and flooding on century flood scales.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 5, 2009 16:38:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 5, 2009 16:44:33 GMT
As far as hurricanes go, we are in a warm AMO which has resulted in higher incidents of hurricanes, much like it did back in the 50's and 60's, however as soon as it changes to a cold phase we will get back to lower levels similar to the 70's and 80's (my decade references may be off a bit).
You might also note that Chris Landsea (a hurricane forecaster for the National Hurricane Center) dropped out of the IPCC, calling it's science corrupt, because Kenneth Trendberth (lead writer for ipcc) was publishing papers that claimed hurricanes had increased due to global warming.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 5, 2009 21:16:10 GMT
Jim, Can you give all us skeptics a definition of what the difference is between NORMAL chaotic weather and ANTHROPOGENIC chaotic weather. Can you give us an index to track like 2 inches of rain divided by the hours that it fell in PLUS Samphir Simpson scale for Hurricanes times 25 PLUS the number of tornadoes times 5 PLUS the change in temps during a day divided the hours to change. And then if you don't mind, can you back cast that about 1000 years or so. Thanks, Dopey I'm not a meterologist or climate scientist, and I'm not being paid by you, so watch it wit the demands. I think the easiest way to demonstrate that "chaotic climate" is happening here and now is the record extremes. Statistically, we should have fewer and fewer records over time -- that's the nature of statistics. And yet we keep having records -- longest drought, heaviest rain / flood, hottest summer, etc. You mentioned hurricanes -- look at the recent seasons versus previous seasons on record. There is a very clear increase (but not monotonic, as the warmies would claim) in the number of named storms. Likewise, there are prolonged droughts in areas that were never subject to drought, and then massive rains and flooding on century flood scales. With regard to the very clear increase in the number of named storms: The period 2006-2008 saw the lowest number in Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclones ever recorded. www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-11-12-northern-hemisphere-hurricane-activity_N.htm ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 5, 2009 22:20:45 GMT
Jim, Can you give all us skeptics a definition of what the difference is between NORMAL chaotic weather and ANTHROPOGENIC chaotic weather. Can you give us an index to track like 2 inches of rain divided by the hours that it fell in PLUS Samphir Simpson scale for Hurricanes times 25 PLUS the number of tornadoes times 5 PLUS the change in temps during a day divided the hours to change. And then if you don't mind, can you back cast that about 1000 years or so. Thanks, Dopey I'm not a meterologist or climate scientist, and I'm not being paid by you, so watch it wit the demands. I think the easiest way to demonstrate that "chaotic climate" is happening here and now is the record extremes. Statistically, we should have fewer and fewer records over time -- that's the nature of statistics. And yet we keep having records -- longest drought, heaviest rain / flood, hottest summer, etc. You mentioned hurricanes -- look at the recent seasons versus previous seasons on record. There is a very clear increase (but not monotonic, as the warmies would claim) in the number of named storms. Likewise, there are prolonged droughts in areas that were never subject to drought, and then massive rains and flooding on century flood scales. There is research being done by Florida State University on Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE): " Analysis shown in the figure depicts tropical cyclone energy continuously summed over 24-month periods from 1975 through 31, January 2009. The top green time series shows the evolution of global Accumluated Cyclone Energy or ACE. Global ACE is at historical lows, and the lowest in 30-years. The Earth is experiencing a prolonged period of severely depressed cyclone activity. The Northern Hemisphere is responsible for 70% of global tropical cyclone ACE on average since 1975. Thus, it is no surprise that Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone activity is also at 30-year lows. " Apologies for the size of the graphic ... coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 6, 2009 2:23:19 GMT
crakar24: please don't lecture me on paleoclimatology, except if you know something really specific and interesting. You are talking about tens to hundreds of millions of years ago, when continents and ocean currents were completely different, the atmospheric composition was completely different, volcanic activity was different and TSI was lower. You could almost be talking about a different planet. It is an error made by many (even geologists), while working with it they do seem to forget how different earth was and how terribly long ago that is. I'm not going to give you references about this, go find them yourself, they can be found everywhere. [/quote] Yeah your right a different planet, all the animals breathed in methane and shit oxygen. Plant life sucked in laughing gas and burped out Ozone. And all that C02 was put there by GOD and acted in complete contradiction to your stupid theory and kept the planet cool. But thats alright you sit there and jibber on with all vagness of an IPCC report trying to give the impression that you know what you are talking about. Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 6, 2009 15:39:26 GMT
This is what brought me here in the first place. Google ["Cubic Kilometers" "Fossil water" Irrigation] You will see the HUGE amount of extra water vapor being put into the atmosphere by irrigation - and by definition all the irrigation is in ARID areas. So there is suddenly water vapor where once there was not and it makes the arid areas warmer especially at night. And of course HYDRO-carbons when burnt are turned into H 2O and CO 2. Water vapor provides far more radiative forcing than carbon dioxide AND even the AGW proponents know this as without it their AGW hypothesis is falisified. But the IPCC only includes it in AR4 as a _feedback_ I'm wondering where you get that impression? Are you quoting someone? Have you actually delved into AR4? (I don't say 'read' because that's asking way too much. The damned thing is a high-level kloodge and about as much fun as a root canal.) Page 182: "2.5.6 Tropospheric Water Vapour from Anthropogenic Sources Anthropogenic use of water is less than 1% of natural sources of water vapour and about 70% of the use of water for human activity is from irrigation (Döll, 2002). Several regional studies have indicated an impact of irrigation on temperature, humidity and precipitation...yatta-yatta²..." The feedbacks section doesn't start until about Page 479. The Earth's surface is 70% water, and the air over the ocean has 100% relative humidity. Over land, water from irrigation mixes with colder air and any excess water eventually drops out as rain. Wet (humid) air rises, radiates heat to space, and again the water comes out as rain. As the fabulous IPCC says, irrigation causes only about 1% of the H²O in the atmosphere. They might lie to you, but I won't. Yes - the trigger for me was one of Mann of the Hockey Stick's insistence that water vapor was unimportant as any water that entered the atmosphere would drop out as rain inside 12 hours. So if I irrigate an area like the Negev or the Libyan desert and the more humid air is then blown across Egypt and the Northern Sahara - it will drop out as rain?? Highly unlikely. There would be streamers of higher humidity over these arid areas from those where 'the desert has been turned green'. The picture below is the Negev 'Desert' - this type of irrigation is going on continually in many many desert areas worldwide using 'fossil water' from very deep aquifers formed millenia ago Now think of how much water 1% of all the water in the atmosphere actually is - and put that in ARID areas where it will be very very much more than 1% of the baseline water vapor before irrigation. We are dealing with a complex chaotic weather system in which these arid areas with almost no humidity rapidly cool at night - and we put a perturbation into those arid areas by evaporating at a steady rate cubic kilometers of water vapor that would otherwise NOT be there as it is 'fossil' water from extremely deep aquifers - and the arid areas now are are warmer and more humid during the day and do NOT rapidly cool at night. This is not a butterfly effect - it is a large effect scattered into many of the arid areas worldwide. The problem the IPCC has got is that they are averaging over the entire world - not thinking that the 1% is localized in arid areas and of the perturbation effect that input will have on the balance of a chaotic weather system. By the same logic the world's mountains should be averaged over the entire Earth's surface and it could be said that as mountains only raise the average surface levels by 15ft, they have no effect on climate. And in any case irrigation is a lot more of a difficult PR target than 'big oil', SUVs and private jets.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 6, 2009 18:15:26 GMT
ah, you are mixing two processes together. You are looking at the effects of clouds on global temperature, which is a completely different issue. I was saying IF you raise the temperature of an atmospheric parcel, then, if relative humidity stays constant the water content of that atmospheric parcel increases due to the clausius clapeyron relation. This raises temperature as H2O is a strong greenhouse gas. Clouds cool the surface (during daytime...), but warm the atmosphere by latent heat release. The net effect of clouds is quite uncertain, but generally high clouds have warming effect and low clouds a cooling effect on surface temperatures. The total effect of clouds on earth is thought to be slightly negative. Its a little more complex than that. You may be interested to read this paper. Journal of Climate - Article: pp. 4495–4511; Tropical Convection and the Energy Balance at the Top of the Atmosphere
Dennis L. Hartmann, Leslie A. Moy, and Qiang Fu; Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington Its conclusion states inter alia: "The corresponding cloud net radiative forcings at the top of the atmosphere for these cloud types range from +20 to −119 W m−2. This great variation in net radiative effect arises mostly from the reflectivity of the clouds, which is primarily dependent on the water and/or ice content of the clouds." and " We have verified that the cloud radiative forcing in regions of suppressed convection in the deep Tropics is small even when the abundance of low clouds is substantial. These conclusions follow if the convective and nonconvective areas are nearly in equilibrium with each other. If the circulation is forced by significant ocean heat transport, as in the east Pacific, or by strong dynamical forcing associated with land–sea contrasts, as in the Bay of Bengal area, then the net cloud radiative forcing in the convective regions can be significantly negative (e.g., Fig. 1 ). The net radiative effect of tropical convective clouds is thus dependent on the nature of the large-scale circulation within which they are embedded, and may respond to circulation anomalies associated with El Niño, for example.
The implications of this feedback process for the sensitivity of tropical climate need to be explored more fully. "
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 6, 2009 18:26:01 GMT
Yes - the trigger for me was one of Mann of the Hockey Stick's insistence that water vapor was unimportant as any water that entered the atmosphere would drop out as rain inside 12 hours. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of Mann? So if I irrigate an area like the Negev or the Libyan desert and the more humid air is then blown across Egypt and the Northern Sahara - it will drop out as rain?? Highly unlikely. There would be streamers of higher humidity over these arid areas from those where 'the desert has been turned green'. The picture below is the Negev 'Desert'[picture trimmed] It would take a lot more mixing for it to rain out, possibly encircling the globe before much of it condenses. More on the Negev: www.newsweek.com/id/143688/output/printNow think of how much water 1% of all the water in the atmosphere actually is - and put that in ARID areas where it will be very very much more than 1% of the baseline water vapor before irrigation. My point was that the IPCC DO address water as a greenhouse gas, even though they swept it under their modelistic rug. They much prefer to focus on the +feedback part, since that's where all the fun is. We are dealing with a complex chaotic weather system in which these arid areas with almost no humidity rapidly cool at night - and we put a perturbation into those arid areas by evaporating at a steady rate cubic kilometers of water vapor that would otherwise NOT be there as it is 'fossil' water from extremely deep aquifers - and the arid areas now are are warmer and more humid during the day and do NOT rapidly cool at night. This is not a butterfly effect - it is a large effect scattered into many of the arid areas worldwide. Yes, but I don't think the source is relevant. It's still H²O. The problem the IPCC has got is that they are averaging over the entire world - not thinking that the 1% is localized in arid areas and of the perturbation effect that input will have on the balance of a chaotic weather system. By the same logic the world's mountains should be averaged over the entire Earth's surface and it could be said that as mountains only raise the average surface levels by 15ft, they have no effect on climate. Yes, there's a lot of that kind of thinking, though the modelers TRY to make allowance for microclimate by using a grid system within the GCM's. Many observers contend that the grid is nowhere near fine enough. For a chaotic system, no grid will be fine enough, and any putative net GW will be similarly scattered, not uniform. And in any case irrigation is a lot more of a difficult PR target than 'big oil', SUVs and private jets. Logic says you're right. But logic is not the Greenshirts strong suit. If not reined in, they'll eventually get around to doing a number on ag irrigation. Think "water cap and trade." Today, CO², tomorrow the world!
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 6, 2009 18:40:29 GMT
...Yeah , you 'r e right , a different planet, all the animals breathed in methane and shit oxygen... Yes, but I should point out that the past tense of shit is shat. A reference, you say? I'll be only too happy to provide a reference. It's not a lot of trouble, since I know what I'm talking about, here. Now, if I didn't know shit, I'd have a really hard time providing a reference and would have give you a rude answer, instead. But it's no problem, crakar-san: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shat
|
|