|
Post by socold on May 31, 2009 18:21:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on May 31, 2009 19:52:26 GMT
socold: "Found a few numbers for it: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf" I knew you could come up with something if you put your mind to it. I am not surprised at the source either. A Hansen model. Hansen: " Note that although 40% of the equilibrium solution is obtained within several years, only 60% is achieved after a century, and nearly full response requires a millennium. The long response time is caused by slow uptake of heat by the deep ocean, which occurs primarily in the Southern Ocean." So we only have to wait a millennium to find out if the models are falsified. Spencer's use of 1000 meters in his simple model for his ocean MLD thing doesn't seem so silly in light of Hansen's story, does it?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 31, 2009 20:33:46 GMT
socold: "Found a few numbers for it: pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf"I knew you could come up with something if you put your mind to it. I am not surprised at the source either. A Hansen model. Hansen: " Note that although 40% of the equilibrium solution is obtained within several years, only 60% is achieved after a century, and nearly full response requires a millennium. The long response time is caused by slow uptake of heat by the deep ocean, which occurs primarily in the Southern Ocean." So we only have to wait a millennium to find out if the models are falsified. Spencer's use of 1000 meters in his simple model for his ocean MLD thing doesn't seem so silly in light of Hansen's story, does it? Errrmm where does the heat go to during that millenium? If its NOT stored in the ocean - it must be somewhere - as the CO 2 lid is on the pot and not letting it out. Perhaps I am being a little too simplistic here * the rate of input energy is remaining relatively constant (or so we are told) * the rate of OUTPUT of energy is reduced by 'GHG' (sic) up to 3.7WM -2 * the spare energy will raise the temperature until the rate of output energy reaches another equilibrium Only number 3 hasn't happened over the last few years and we are told this is because the oceans take a long time to heat up . But the heat energy is not forming an orderly line to go into the deep ocean and ocean temperatures are flat at best. Its got to be somewhere - and there is LOTS and LOTS of it (again so we are told). Wherever it is should be getting EXTREMELY hot - but there is no evidence of this extreme heat. We appear to have a paradox here. Or is it rather a failure of a hypothesis?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 1, 2009 2:32:32 GMT
socold: "It's not my problem to give a precise value for the lag, the problem lies with those who want to claim "we've already seen x% of the warming from a doubling of co2". In order to calculate the x one of the things you need to know is how much of the ghg forcing the climate has responded to." Thanks for not telling us about the pot of water thing again. Couldn't you find the answer on realclimate? It would seem that those guys would be very keen on explaining where their missing heat is, since the public is waking up and discarding the catastrophic AGW theory in increasing numbers. Like you, I can't calculate x either. But my guess is that we have seen about all the heat that we are going to see from the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Whatever heat there may be in the "pipeline" is offset by the negative feedback from increased water vapor that is also in the pipeline. *Disclaimer I got that from one of the many BIG OIL websites that is spreading dis-information on catastrophic AGW, and evolution. Whatever heat there may be in the "pipeline" is offset by the negative feedback from increased water vapor that is also in the pipeline There is no "heat in the pipeline". Further, I'd like to see the calculations on how back radiation can account for more warming than direct solar radiation for the period 1993-2003; the so-called "proof" of CO2 AGW (Hansen et al 2005). To believe such nonsense is to promote gravity machines and the like. This concept should be added to 'The Museum of Unworkable Devices'. www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 1, 2009 9:12:29 GMT
Socold the "heat in the pipeline" people are talking about is the heat that has already been trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere, reflected back to earth and stored someplace beyond any place anybody has taken a thermometer in the past 6 years. Folks want to know where that heat is that is supposed to be there as predicted by the global heat loss deficit models. The pipeline people are not talking and asking about is energy sources still in the sun that are predicted to get trapped by CO2 already in the air sometime in the future. In other words to keep it simple, folks are asking about the watts per meter squared received by the earth from the date of first predictions to today. We will call this ("heat gained") Nobody is asking about the watts you are predicting to continue to be gained ad inifinitum or until the last molecule of CO2 currently in the atmosphere falls to earth. Its just your imagination anybody asked such a question. (we will call this "predicted heat gain") Its really quite simple Socold. If you cannot make a good case for predicted heat gain of the future until you tell us where the "heat gained" you and your cohorts predicted would be received by now is residing at over the past 6 years. Now I see you obfusicating all over the place, going on endlessly about "pauses" and other such nonsense. To my knowledge so far nobody has suggested that CO2 molecules can turn on and off their ability to trap IR longwave, thus that wattage per square meter has to be someplace on the planet today or if not you need to tell us why. You see the essential problem here is you and your cohorts built your theory on observations of a warming planet and discounted every other possibility of where that heat might have come from because nobody could explain how it got there.
So now you have the same problem. Since you built this theory on a lack of other explanations for heat observed, you should either explain what happened to the missing heat or take your theory apart and rebuild it based upon what you do know.
Hansen 2008 is trying to obfusicate the essential failure of his model (failure here being carefully defined in terms of the genesis of the theory) by going on about more predicted heat gains and you are trying to throw rose petals in his path by going on about how unexplained pauses are to be expected.Its my view you eliminated that excuse by the way the theory was invented. To have a single shred of scientific integrity you have to hold your own theory to your own standards of the foundation on which it was built. That failure puts your models into the same category your arguments have put sunspots, cosmic rays etc. So by that measure your models have failed.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 1, 2009 17:52:19 GMT
Well said
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 1, 2009 18:25:34 GMT
Socold the "heat in the pipeline" people are talking about is the heat that has already been trapped by CO2 in the atmosphere, reflected back to earth and stored someplace beyond any place anybody has taken a thermometer in the past 6 years. Folks want to know where that heat is that is supposed to be there as predicted by the global heat loss deficit models. This isn't what heat in the pipeline means. If you turn on a stove under a pot of water, then that water will not reach boiling point immediately. There is heat in the pipeline though, because as long as the forcing from the stove is maintained the water has a large temperature increase ahead of it to reach equillibrium. It's useful to know what the phrases you attack actually mean...preferably before attacking them.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 1, 2009 18:29:06 GMT
socold: "It's not my problem to give a precise value for the lag, the problem lies with those who want to claim "we've already seen x% of the warming from a doubling of co2". In order to calculate the x one of the things you need to know is how much of the ghg forcing the climate has responded to." Thanks for not telling us about the pot of water thing again. Couldn't you find the answer on realclimate? It would seem that those guys would be very keen on explaining where their missing heat is, since the public is waking up and discarding the catastrophic AGW theory in increasing numbers. Like you, I can't calculate x either. But my guess is that we have seen about all the heat that we are going to see from the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Whatever heat there may be in the "pipeline" is offset by the negative feedback from increased water vapor that is also in the pipeline. *Disclaimer I got that from one of the many BIG OIL websites that is spreading dis-information on catastrophic AGW, and evolution. Whatever heat there may be in the "pipeline" is offset by the negative feedback from increased water vapor that is also in the pipeline There is no "heat in the pipeline". I disagree, you can't warm the oceans up instantaneously and I doubt all the warming to equillibrium has yet been realized. Evidentally the field of climate science agrees with me.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 1, 2009 20:16:00 GMT
socold: "I disagree, you can't warm the oceans up instantaneously and I doubt all the warming to equillibrium has yet been realized. Evidentally the field of climate science agrees with me."
OK, we know that you can't warm the oceans up instantaneously. LIKE A POT OF WATER ON A STOVE!!! So where is the heat? Where has all that warming gone while it waits it's turn to get into the oceans? Where is the warmth qeue and how long is it, socold?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 1, 2009 20:47:22 GMT
socold: "I disagree, you can't warm the oceans up instantaneously and I doubt all the warming to equillibrium has yet been realized. Evidentally the field of climate science agrees with me." OK, we know that you can't warm the oceans up instantaneously. LIKE A POT OF WATER ON A STOVE!!! So where is the heat? Where has all that warming gone while it waits it's turn to get into the oceans? Where is the warmth qeue and how long is it, socold? Think about a pot of water on a stove. The water is at room temperature. You've just turned the stove on. Where is the heat? Where has all that warming gone while it waits it turn to get into the water in the pot? Where is the warmth "qeue" and how long is it? All quite silly questions really.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 1, 2009 21:41:36 GMT
Think about a pot of water on a stove. The water is at room temperature. You've just turned the stove on. Where is the heat? Where has all that warming gone while it waits it turn to get into the water in the pot? Where is the warmth "qeue" and how long is it? All quite silly questions really. So how many years ago did the heat get turned on socold?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 1, 2009 22:07:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 1, 2009 23:44:39 GMT
socold: "I disagree, you can't warm the oceans up instantaneously and I doubt all the warming to equillibrium has yet been realized. Evidentally the field of climate science agrees with me." OK, we know that you can't warm the oceans up instantaneously. LIKE A POT OF WATER ON A STOVE!!! So where is the heat? Where has all that warming gone while it waits it's turn to get into the oceans? Where is the warmth qeue and how long is it, socold? Think about a pot of water on a stove. The water is at room temperature. You've just turned the stove on. Where is the heat? Where has all that warming gone while it waits it turn to get into the water in the pot? Where is the warmth "qeue" and how long is it? All quite silly questions really. SoCold you have your analogy all wrong. The pot is on the stove The heat (the sun) is on at simmer The pot is at a steady temperature as heat has been escaping by convection and radiation at the same level as the input heat at simmer. AGW now puts a glass lid on the pot and LO the heat starts rising and Hansen, SoCold et al run around shouting "it will boil over -- it will boil over any time n...o......w...." But the pot has got COLDER and gone off the boil... even though the lid is firmly on and the heat is still set at the same level (we know that as SoCold told us it could not turn up or down) But SoCold and Hansen are still saying "it will surprise us and boil over with hidden heat that is in the pot _somewhere_ honest - look at all these lid models...."So the HEAT that was input is hiding somewhere otherwise the pot _would_ have boiled ...... .OR ...... that lid was not quite sealing the heat in as well as SoCold thought it was You see input heat has been steady - the 'lid' has been put on - temperatures rose - consistent with the 'lid' but then they dropped and the heat is nowhere in the pot... only one logical conclusion - its NOT in the pot therefore it must have escaped past the lid which obviously does not keep the heat in as well as it was thought to by Hansen and SoCold despite all that perfect maths and simple physics.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 2, 2009 0:03:24 GMT
nautonnier:
"SoCold
you have your analogy all wrong.
The pot is on the stove
The heat (the sun) is on at simmer"
I don't think we have been getting socold's analogy. His stove is the back radiation from the GHG in the atmosphere. hehehehe Just wait for it. It is going to take a while for that to boil the oceans. And it is working from the bottom up so it will not soon be detected in the upper ocean.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 2, 2009 0:35:06 GMT
I don't think we have been getting socold's analogy. His stove is the back radiation from the GHG in the atmosphere. hehehehe Just wait for it. It is going to take a while for that to boil the oceans. And it is working from the bottom up so it will not soon be detected in the upper ocean. Yep like the 6 million dollar man anthropogenic CO2 isn't normal CO2. Its like CO2 on steroids, when it back radiates these super photons bounce off the bottom of the ocean.
|
|