|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 7, 2009 17:21:45 GMT
Maybe you would be better off in an echo chamber. That's 10 wickets down for a rather pitiful score, and you still don't seem to understand the difference between unrealised warming and missing heat vs "missing heat in the pipeline" which noone except sceptics talks about. Snooker anyone? How about billiards? Unrealized warming vs missing heat. (Avoiding talk of pots and kettles) Imagine a system that is in balance with heat input equalling heat output. Where the output is 'controlled' by the amount of heat in the system so if temperature increases the heat output will increase at a proportionate rate. This is the AGW view of the Earth. (1) As CO 2 or any other 'green-house-gas' (sic) increases it reduces the rate at the current temperature that heat can radiate through the atmosphere as the heat content of the system increases the temperature rises and the 'black-body' radiation from the atmosphere increases until a new balance point is reached. This is the AGW view of 'global warming' due to GHG. (2) There are NO negative feedbacks to this process. This is the AGW view of climate behaviour (3) Now I am assuming that Steve you agree with points 1, 2 and 3 So we have constant heat input but CO 2 has risen 'rapidly' considerably slowing output longwave radiation. However, there has not been sufficient time to heat the system especially the oceans to the extent that the temperature increase will cause the output longwave radiation to increase. Given time the system will warm and reach the new stable position for the particular CO 2 concentration. This is what you are calling the 'unrealised warming' so warming will continue until the new stable position is reached. (The heat is in the pipeline ;D ) (4) Unfortunately, the warming has not continued in the real world outside the models. Input heat - same CO 2 continually rising (to alarming levels Hansen and Gore) Ocean Heat Content dropping (Josh Willis) The sums do not add up. It looks like heat is escaping DESPITE massive increases in CO 2 as the temperatures are NOT rising and ocean heat content is lower.. This is NOT ' unrealised heat' it is realised HEAT LOSS and it cannot be logically drawn from points 1, 2, 3 and 4. There must be something else happening Steve. Looks like the tail ender just scored the winning run with a 6 off a no-ball . So what is your reasoning from behind that barred spot?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 7, 2009 18:09:46 GMT
Minor point. For 3 I would say that the net feedbacks are positive. Otherwise I agree with 1,2,3 and 4.
Where we differ is in acceptance of the short term impact of other things in the climate.
I'll run through some figures - I don't know how they'll square up with what has been published. This is just me being a rough and ready physicist.
Since 1750 there has been a net increase in "forcings" (some increasing, some reducing) leading to a calculated net forcing of 1.6W/m^2 (0.6-2.4) - that's straight out of the IPCC report. Let's take just the 1.6W for now.
Some of the warming has been realised - about 0.8C ?? The unrealised warming (I think I prefer Tom Wigley's "committed warming") is, so they say, another 0.5C.
This means that the current radiation imbalance should average about 0.6W (0.5/(0.8+0.5), which is the proportion of the total committed warming, multiplied by the current forcing of 1.6W).
So what could prevent this imbalance from manifesting?
The TSI variability is about +/-0.1W/m^2 over a cycle. As we're at minimum that's -0.1W.
Your figures on "net cloud forcing" are about -100W/m^2. So a change in cloud forcing of 0.5% might make up the rest.
Or there may be other subtle changes such as the distribution of the heat or water vapour in the planet that is due to the ocean cycles. Such tiny effects would be very hard to monitor with the amount of observing we're doing at the moment.
In other words we're talking about a (potentially) temporary cancellation of a relatively small number.
This no doubt will sound unsatisfactory to you, so why do I believe it is acceptable to expect that whatever has happened recently won't always happen?
Well because compared with what has happened previously, the pause in ohc change is not totally out of the ordinary - see for example the Levitus plot on the other thread. Or if you dig out earth radiation budget figures, they can go up and down a bit.
The longer that ocean heat content doesn't pick up, the better it will be perhaps. But the sea levels are hinting at a pickup after a pause that matched the OHC figures, so I'm not hopeful.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jun 7, 2009 22:39:04 GMT
There is no observational evidence of anything in the global temperature record that doesn't fit previous natural cycles and trends. Still waiting for CO2 to radically kick in and demonstrate its "unprededented" effects...
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 7, 2009 22:41:55 GMT
There is no observational evidence of anything in the global temperature record that doesn't fit previous natural cycles and trends. Still waiting for CO2 to radically kick in and demonstrate its "unprededented" effects... Can you give a hypothetical example of something that wouldn't fit previous natural cycles and trends?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2009 0:11:59 GMT
There is no observational evidence of anything in the global temperature record that doesn't fit previous natural cycles and trends. Still waiting for CO2 to radically kick in and demonstrate its "unprededented" effects... Can you give a hypothetical example of something that wouldn't fit previous natural cycles and trends? Sure thing. Something like a 1 degree rise in a single decade would be unprecedented. Or even like a rate of .2 degrees/decade for 5 decades though its come close to that if you go back before there was much CO2 in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2009 0:44:46 GMT
Minor point. For 3 I would say that the net feedbacks are positive. Otherwise I agree with 1,2,3 and 4. Where we differ is in acceptance of the short term impact of other things in the climate. I'll run through some figures - I don't know how they'll square up with what has been published. This is just me being a rough and ready physicist. Since 1750 there has been a net increase in "forcings" (some increasing, some reducing) leading to a calculated net forcing of 1.6W/m^2 (0.6-2.4) - that's straight out of the IPCC report. Let's take just the 1.6W for now. Some of the warming has been realised - about 0.8C ?? The unrealised warming (I think I prefer Tom Wigley's "committed warming") is, so they say, another 0.5C. This means that the current radiation imbalance should average about 0.6W (0.5/(0.8+0.5), which is the proportion of the total committed warming, multiplied by the current forcing of 1.6W). So what could prevent this imbalance from manifesting? The TSI variability is about +/-0.1W/m^2 over a cycle. As we're at minimum that's -0.1W. Your figures on "net cloud forcing" are about -100W/m^2. So a change in cloud forcing of 0.5% might make up the rest. Or there may be other subtle changes such as the distribution of the heat or water vapour in the planet that is due to the ocean cycles. Such tiny effects would be very hard to monitor with the amount of observing we're doing at the moment. In other words we're talking about a (potentially) temporary cancellation of a relatively small number. LOL! You sound like a bank investment manager explaining what went wrong with his failed investment strategy (I worked on a half dozen failed banks). Seems kind of silly when all that stuff can be accounted for and explained as really basic stuff easily after the fact, huh? This no doubt will sound unsatisfactory to you, so why do I believe it is acceptable to expect that whatever has happened recently won't always happen? Well because compared with what has happened previously, the pause in ohc change is not totally out of the ordinary - see for example the Levitus plot on the other thread. Or if you dig out earth radiation budget figures, they can go up and down a bit. Enough to explain historic temperature changes? Thats really interesting coming from you. The longer that ocean heat content doesn't pick up, the better it will be perhaps. But the sea levels are hinting at a pickup after a pause that matched the OHC figures, so I'm not hopeful. Morner claims that sealevel experts have not be consulted to explain projected warmings from sealevel changes. Is that true? If no who have you relied on here?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 8, 2009 4:13:33 GMT
Yo steve, I see the warmista brothers have been working hard today. Don’t you boys ever take a break? They must have some new guys in training over at realclimate who could relieve you for a bit. I don’t think the defense of the warmista agenda would suffer much in your absence.
Anyways, I missed a lot of action here today, as I was out on my big fuel guzzling boat/ship enjoying some unseasonably cool ocean breezes. Please excuse the cherry-picking, but it really should be a lot warmer here now.
Congratulations on finally attempting to answer the questions, even though I had to goad you into a burst of anger that compelled you to temporarily suspend your rope-a-dope act.
So many unanswered questions piled up and it took you so long to man up, that I have lost interest. However, a brief perusal of your tardy replies moves me to begrudgingly give you credit for a cheap bunt single, and a HBP. I am not really familiar with that cricket nonsense, but I am guessing that’s the equivalent of awarding you like a couple of sticky wickets.
At the end of the day, we are still where we started out steve. Your team has for decades been trying to frighten us into voluntarily returning to the pre-industrial age, but the predicted/projected heat has not arrived steve. Where’s the heat.?
PS: I hope you don’t have to experience living in a house with no heat again steve. Things are looking up for you people. Labor is on the way out.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 8, 2009 17:00:51 GMT
Minor point. For 3 I would say that the net feedbacks are positive. Otherwise I agree with 1,2,3 and 4. Where we differ is in acceptance of the short term impact of other things in the climate. I'll run through some figures - I don't know how they'll square up with what has been published. This is just me being a rough and ready physicist. Since 1750 there has been a net increase in "forcings" (some increasing, some reducing) leading to a calculated net forcing of 1.6W/m^2 (0.6-2.4) - that's straight out of the IPCC report. Let's take just the 1.6W for now. Some of the warming has been realised - about 0.8C ?? The unrealised warming (I think I prefer Tom Wigley's "committed warming") is, so they say, another 0.5C. This means that the current radiation imbalance should average about 0.6W (0.5/(0.8+0.5), which is the proportion of the total committed warming, multiplied by the current forcing of 1.6W). So what could prevent this imbalance from manifesting? The TSI variability is about +/-0.1W/m^2 over a cycle. As we're at minimum that's -0.1W. Your figures on "net cloud forcing" are about -100W/m^2. So a change in cloud forcing of 0.5% might make up the rest. Or there may be other subtle changes such as the distribution of the heat or water vapour in the planet that is due to the ocean cycles. Such tiny effects would be very hard to monitor with the amount of observing we're doing at the moment. In other words we're talking about a (potentially) temporary cancellation of a relatively small number. LOL! You sound like a bank investment manager explaining what went wrong with his failed investment strategy (I worked on a half dozen failed banks). Seems kind of silly when all that stuff can be accounted for and explained as really basic stuff easily after the fact, huh? Except I would not advise a 50 year old to put all his retirement fund into stocks based on the (alleged) rise in the market over the past 30 years. But I've said that, no, the detailed causes behind the changes in rates of ocean warming *cannot* be accounted for after the fact because our observations aren't good enough. I will bow down and kiss Mörner's feet when somebody provides me with a copy of his calculations that disprove sea level rise through statistics of the rotation of the earth. Till then, I reserve the right to respect his opinion less than the likes of the scientists who are active in monitoring the earth. Here's the plot I've been keeping my eye on for a few months. I'm not claiming I truly know what it tells us:
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jun 8, 2009 17:24:08 GMT
There is no observational evidence of anything in the global temperature record that doesn't fit previous natural cycles and trends. Still waiting for CO2 to radically kick in and demonstrate its "unprededented" effects... Can you give a hypothetical example of something that wouldn't fit previous natural cycles and trends? Sure. Icefisher already listed a couple below...any increase in the rate of warming above what we have seen previously in the temperature record. If nothing unprecedented is happening, and natural cycles still appear to be happening and causing similar effects, it's hard to make a case that CO2 is having much effect on the system.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 8, 2009 19:41:59 GMT
Except I would not advise a 50 year old to put all his retirement fund into stocks based on the (alleged) rise in the market over the past 30 years. But you are in AGW stock based on the (alleged) rise in the temperature of the atmosphere over the past 30 years. But I've said that, no, the detailed causes behind the changes in rates of ocean warming *cannot* be accounted for after the fact because our observations aren't good enough.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 9, 2009 3:42:08 GMT
Here is some info on progress of the CERN CLOUD cosmic ray/cloud experiment that will soon start to test the Svensmark theory. Video of the arrival of their 3 meter cloud chamber. And interesteing video on theory and the plan for the coming experiment. motls.blogspot.com/
|
|