Open Thread Wednesday

open_thread

I have travel today, hence this open thread.

Some folks report issues with posting comments, and from what I can tell it seems to be related to wordpress.com. Try clearing your cache and/or using a different browser if this persists today.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jim Cripwell

I have been having a discussion on Climate Etc, and I wonder what people on WUWT think. I maintain climate sensitivity, however defined, has never been measured. Warmists on CS insist that it has been measured, but wont quote a refereence, a value or an accuracy. This issure relates to the probabilites (>90% and >95%) which the IPCC quotes to support the conclusions in the SPMs of the AR4 to WG1. Who is right?
[Reply: Got a link to the discussion? — mod.]

I have been trying to get this considered over Easter:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
Any comments?

For those interested, here’s the last few weeks of ENSO data leading to Monday’s ENSO meter adjustment to 0.0:
Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=02&month=mar&year=2013&fday=01&fmonth=apr&fyear=2013&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=-120&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
Found target /png/tmp/CTEST136481400110077.txt
Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov//png/tmp/CTEST136481400110077.txt
Data file
data from 00Z02MAR2013 to 00Z01APR2013
“———-”
-0.292665
-0.0628619
-0.276973
-0.0785116
0.00643479

DaveK

Allseems very quiet on the climategate3 front, is there anything interestiing or is just fluff

Bob Diaz

Pity the Open Thread wasn’t on April 1, just think of all the funny stuff that would have been posted. :-))

Mike Bromley the Canucklehead in Switzerland

Riesenbagger zerquetscht Mercedes. Not a happy fellow.

troe

Update on the “Green” economy collapse taking place in Tennessee. Hemlock Semiconductor has terminated it’s 300 plus workforce at the polysilicon plant newly built here. No production ever took place at this state-of-the-art facility to nowhere. 100’s of millions of dollars in tax and TVA ratepayer money down the green drain. Another new facility of equal cost in the center of the state has been “delayed” by 18 months by Wacker Chenie AG. The gold has washed off of the shovels revealing the rust beneath. Of course just mentioning any of this may be seen by some as evidence of my fixation.

G. Karst

Too bad we have no sterilized emails to discuss. Are they locked away in the same vault as the password, or do they contain nothing worth discussing. Anybody know what is happening at the faucet or is the subject now taboo. GK

Kent Noonan

I propose to use part of this open thread for a serious conversation about letters to the editor. I’ve been trying to compose a short, effective letter for our local newspaper that can be read and taken to heart by all the folks that have been duped by the AGW hype. Get them to open their eyes and look deeper at the issue. Necessarily, it should not be an attack, it should be informative, short, provide online reference sources, and somehow appeal to the people that would most likely reject the message.
We are at a very interesting point on this topic. There are a lot of mainstream media sources continuing the hype and trumpeting doom. At the same time we have unprecedented sources of recent information that clearly shows most of that to be untrue. The challenge is to create a letter to the editor that can be used everywhere and help the masses realize that there is a change in the wind. If we don’t, we may end up with a new US federal carbon tax or similar situation, in spite of the fact that AGW “Climate Change” is not real.
So post some well considered thoughts that folks can copy and paste.
Consider it an essay contest, 250 words or less.

UK heading for a new Little Ice Age?
It’s official, CET March coldest for 125 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-March.htm

Chris @njsnowfan

I have posted this before but only one response.
Man made static is distorting the worlds surface temp data BUT Man made BTU Heat emmisions released everyday into the atmospher(Manufacturing, gas flare, autos, homes, pavement ect.) is keeping temps in a range the past 16 years. The earth is a giant green house and when heat is released in a green house it takes time to escape or absorbed by the water in it.. There are trillions? of BTU’s released as heat every day bymankind.
The sun has been very quiet for many years but that mankind BTU heat being released everyday is keeping temps stable is my feeling.
Please look at the world tempature chart and you will see in 2008 when the world economy was at a stand still the temps fell and a spotless sun. Mankind BTU heat emmisions fell and so did world surface temps.
Arctic is melting faster every year due to High altitude jet exhust emissions BC being deposited in the N hem ice and snow caps is my feeling also.
Thanks

Mark Bofill

Jim Cripwell says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:43 am
I have been having a discussion on Climate Etc, and I wonder what people on WUWT think. I maintain climate sensitivity, however defined, has never been measured. Warmists on CS insist that it has been measured, but wont quote a refereence, a value or an accuracy. This issure relates to the probabilites (>90% and >95%) which the IPCC quotes to support the conclusions in the SPMs of the AR4 to WG1. Who is right?
—-
Hi Jim, I argued with a warmist about this fairly recently. He insisted that there were paleo studies that ‘measured’ or at least provided bounds for CS, that the models provided certainty that CS was 3.0 + or – 1.5 to within 95%, and that a bunch of other assorted papers backed this up. We bickered back and forth about whether or not the models were worth a darn, I ignored the paleo argument I think, and he finally walked away when I noted that he cited papers that provided different / exclusive ranges for this 95% percent certainty he was claiming.
~shrug~
The IPCC is playing con games with people imho by assigning probabilities based on ‘expert opinion’ like they do, but I’m sure I’m not telling you anything new there.
Lots of people appear to have their opinions on CS, but given that so many people claim certainty to so many different ranges and values, it’d be a lot of tedious work to walk through each claim with a detailed analysis to figure out who’s got the genuine article, if anybody in fact does. As far as I’m concerned CS is still an open question.

Richard M

Jim Cripwell says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:43 am
I have been having a discussion on Climate Etc, and I wonder what people on WUWT think. I maintain climate sensitivity, however defined, has never been measured. Warmists on CS insist that it has been measured, but wont quote a refereence, a value or an accuracy. This issure relates to the probabilites (>90% and >95%) which the IPCC quotes to support the conclusions in the SPMs of the AR4 to WG1. Who is right?

When I discuss sensitivity I try and relate it to previous times that were warmer. We’ve discussed them many times around here. Even Marcott’s paper shows it was much warmer earlier in the Holocene. Why should it make any difference if it is warmer due to CO2 vs. something else? When we look at the historical records we see nothing that even hints of a super sensitive climate.

G. Karst:
At April 3, 2013 at 10:08 am you say and ask

Too bad we have no sterilized emails to discuss. Are they locked away in the same vault as the password, or do they contain nothing worth discussing. Anybody know what is happening at the faucet or is the subject now taboo. GK

I offer my response.
Climategate 3 is a file of emails which is in the public domain but cannot be accessed without use of a password which has not been released. The file seems to have been provided by the same person(s) who leaked the Climategate 1 and 2 emails, and he/she/they claims to have the password.
The originators of the Climategate 1, 2 and 3 emails must know what is in all those emails because the emails are theirs.
The Climategate leaker has assurance of not being tackled whether or not the ‘authorities’ have identified him/her/them so long as
(a) the password is not revealed
and
(b) there is at least one devastating email in the Climategate 3 file.
Hence, I do not anticipate that the key will be revealed until either the AGW-scare is history or the Climategate leaker dies of natural causes and releases the key in his/her/their Will.
Richard

Richard M

Mark Bofill, I think I remember those paleo studies and they were obviously a case of cherry picking. It’s pretty obvious that the planet is in a bi-stable situation with attractors to either an interglacial or glacial condition.
I believe those studies used situations where the climate was moving from a glacial state to an interglacial to claim the climate was highly sensitive. They are probably right for a climate in that particular state. However, it is pure nonsense as it says nothing about sensitivity when we are in a stable climate state.

OnAverage

vukcevic says:
April 3, 2013 at 10:18 am
UK heading for a new Little Ice Age?
It’s official, CET March coldest for 125 years.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-March.htm
——————————————————————————————————-
Nice chart but I notice the tendency is for the temperature to peak out in the opposite direction after 3-5 yrs then repeat the other direction with around a 5C delta. What would cause the cycling?

Sure its been measured Jim. And you’ve been given many links over the past months.
measuring it is simple:
Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing
Like this
Speed = Distance/Time
You measure sensitivity by measure temperature and by measuring changes in forcing.
You can go do that today. Go ahead.
Example:
From 1850 to today we see a change in temperature of 1C (add whatever error you like)
and we see a change in forcing of say 2watts ( add whatever error you like)
Sensitivity is thus 1/2 or .5 add whatever error you have from your measurement proceedure.
Now to calculate the sensitivity to a doubling of C02
easy: Forcing from doubling from 280 to 560 = 5.35ln(560/280) = 3.71
3.71 * .5 = 1.85C per doubling.
See how simple. The issue is NOT measuring the quantity. The issue is how large the uncertainty is due to
A) accuracy of measurements
B) time dependence
So its very easy to measure. Its very hard to measure it
1. Accurately.
2. Systematically.
Its the same with other OBSERVATIONAL science.
For example, If the moon doubled in mass what would its orbit be?
Now, If you insist that this question cannot be answered UNTIL we actually
double the mass of the moon, then you’ll end up having to doubt all sorts of things
that you rely on.

for grins
from charles the moderator.. a moshpit inspired chart
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7097/marcottvostokbaselinesh.jpg

Jim Cripwell

My discussion on measuring climate sensitivity started on the Climate Etc. thread
Has Trenberth found the ‘missing’ heat?
with a post
angech | March 30, 2013 at 6:53 am | Reply
I took it to a new piece at
Jim Cripwell | March 31, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Reply

Steve from Rockwood

Is there such a thing as a running estimate of cloud cover for the Earth? The excellent photo in Robert Sanders post “Future shifts In rainfall” shows clear skies over the Sahara which led me to wonder if a “shade” estimate of the earth could be estimated from cloud cover.

Pat Frank

Jim Cripwell, take a look at Kiehl, 2007, “Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity.
Keihl discussed the problem that models are able to reproduce the 20th century temperature trend despite the fact that climate sensitivity varies by a factor of 2-3 among climate models. He shows that modelers anti-correlate aerosol forcing — also poorly constrained — to offset variations in climate sensitivity, so that the two parameters cancel enough to let modelers reproduce the 20th century temperature trend.
The short answer is that climate sensitivity is not known. The longer answer is that climate modelers fudge their results by “tuning” the models to get the right answer.
Steve McIntyre discussed the problem here.

OldWeirdHarold

Mosher. You just contradicted yourself. See: Heisenberg, W.

Alan S. Blue

“Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Steven, I pick the year 2000 and the year 2013.
Both years should have amongst the best possible instrumental measurements for both quantities.

Steven Mosher says:
“Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Not good enough. Any measurement must be verifiable as being caused specifically by human CO2 emissions, and it must be quantified. All you are doing is pointing out a simple correlation, which may or may not be factual. Certainly it is not an empirical, testable “measurement” as I understand the term. As posted, it is simply hand-waving.

NASA tells us that the average global temperature in 2012 was about 58.3F. I didn’t see an error margin stated but let’s say it +/-0.5F for discussion purposes. I’d like to compare that figure to the year 1198. Can anybody help out?

Henry Galt

IMNSHO: CS was 1.0C around the time CO2 rose from 11ppmv to 22ppmv – it has been decreasing logarithmically since that time 😉
I dropped the thermostat on the house heating to 16.0C to replicate government advice (every year for a long time now) to householders to save money. I usually set it at 21.0C so we are pretending to have followed said advice for 5 years.
Our (condensing) boiler is on for exactly the same periods as it was previously. For 48 hours now. Outside temperatures, having not risen above 4.0C or dropped below -2.0C in the interim, may have had something to do with it.

John Bell

Hydraulic Hybrids – I used to do engineering work on the UPS hydraulic hybrid truck, an EPA project out of Ann Arbor. I would like to see the technology make it in to the mainstream, but it seems that this type of hybrid is too expensive, noisy and inefficient. The payback time is too long. People are willing to go green if it pays green. The only real application for hydraulic hybrids is big trash trucks, but it is not catching on like wildfire. Green technology only works when it is heavily subsidized, in other words when someone else is paying for it.

OnAverage says: April 3, 2013 at 11:00 am
…………….
Hi
At this time of the year, the CET (& the N.W. Europe’s temp) is following the negative Icelandic atmospheric pressure (with a very few exceptions).
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-IAP.htm
With proviso that I am not either meteorologist or climate scientist, or scientist at all, in my opinion the Icelandic atmospheric pressure is driven by the balance of warm and cold currents flow through the Denmark straits (see also http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-NV.htm ).
Is there a meteorologist about?

Physics Major

Steven Mosher says:
Now to calculate the sensitivity to a doubling of C02
easy: Forcing from doubling from 280 to 560 = 5.35ln(560/280) = 3.71
3.71 * .5 = 1.85C per doubling.

Gee, that is simple. If you double CO2, the temperature will rise by 1.85C.
So, if we start with one CO2 molecule in the atmosphere and then add one more, the temperature will rise by 1.85C. Then, if we double again by adding two more molecules, we get another 1.85C rise for a total of 3.7C. I could go on for a few more doublings. but you can see that it’s a wonder that we haven’t fried to death with all of those CO2 molecules that are in the atmosphere today.

Jim Cripwell

Steven Mosher, you write “Sensitivity = Change in Temperature/ Change in Forcing”
Yes and no. In principle you are correct. But in any measurement of this sort, there is an independent and a dependent variable. In this case the independent variable is the CO2 level, or the change in forcing. According to the scientific method, it is essential to prove that the changes observed in the dependent variable were casued by changes in the independent variable. With the earth’s climate, this is simply impossible. We do not know either the magnitude or duration of all the different things that can affect global temperatures.
So, measuring climate sensitivity by your approach is impossible with current technology.

RockyRoad

Steven Mosher says:
April 3, 2013 at 11:08 am

for grins
from charles the moderator.. a moshpit inspired chart
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7097/marcottvostokbaselinesh.jpg

I count up to eleven spikes that are higher than the far-right “tack-on”. That’s what makes me grin.

Pat Frank:
Re your post at April 3, 2013 at 11:27 am, it seems sensible for me to again post the following on WUWT.
None of the climate models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes )
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
More than a decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which was greater than was observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
He says in his paper:

One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.
The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change–too rosy a picture?, available at http://www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007) recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the ‘‘widely circulated analysis’’ referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity.

And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:

These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.

And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Thanks to Bill Illis, Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen at
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/8167/kiehl2007figure2.png
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:

Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.

It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^-2 to 2.02 W/m^-2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^-2 to -0.60 W/m^-2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard

Jim Cripwell

mpcraig, you write “Can anybody help out?”
I would be very surprised if anyone can help. The longest continous record of temperatures is that for Central England, going back to the 17th century. Some people are going over older records to see whether we can go back further in time. But no good global data exists until the 18th century. So comparing 2102 tro 1198, is simply not possible

Jim S

Can someone explain how, if CO2 levels are rising — and are expressed as an increase in ppm — then what atmospheric gas(es) are decreasing? What gases are going down in ppm?

dp

Regarding Artic ice – The rate of ice increase going into winter seems nearly constant (loss of solar heating + natural seasonal increase in clouds) year after year while the rate of ice loss for all reasons (drift, compression, melt, sublimation, falling cloud cover) is increasing year after year. This seems to be a consequence of cleaner air after 1979 owing to our efforts to clean up our atmosphere. Clean air is bad for arctic ice because more sunlight reaches the surface. WUWT?

Jim S,
Oxygen is combining with carbon to form CO2. But it is nothing to worry about; we’re talking parts per million.

Robert Austin

Chris @njsnowfan says:
April 3, 2013 at 10:37 am
“I have posted this before but only one response.
“Man made static is distorting the worlds surface temp data BUT Man made BTU Heat emmisions released everyday into the atmospher(Manufacturing, gas flare, autos, homes, pavement ect.)”‘
This has been discussed before on this site and elsewhere.The actual heat emissions from mankind are too miniscule to change the earth’s climate. Heat emissions can change microclimates around temperature measuring stations and hence the controversy over the urban heat island effect. But this is only possibly effecting the temperature record measurement, not the actual global temperature. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you think this is a facture in a possible rise in global temperatures.

DirkH

Steven Mosher says:
April 3, 2013 at 11:07 am
“From 1850 to today we see a change in temperature of 1C (add whatever error you like)
and we see a change in forcing of say 2watts ( add whatever error you like)
Sensitivity is thus 1/2 or .5 add whatever error you have from your measurement proceedure.
Now to calculate the sensitivity to a doubling of C02
easy: Forcing from doubling from 280 to 560 = 5.35ln(560/280) = 3.71
3.71 * .5 = 1.85C per doubling.
See how simple. The issue is NOT measuring the quantity. The issue is how large the uncertainty is due to
A) accuracy of measurements
B) time dependence”

So you are holding that the temperature change from 1850 to today is entirely caused by CO2.
That is surely the most preposterous claim you have ever made.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

troe says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:54 am

Update on the “Green” economy collapse taking place in Tennessee. Hemlock Semiconductor has terminated it’s 300 plus workforce at the polysilicon plant newly built here. No production ever took place at this state-of-the-art facility to nowhere. 100′s of millions of dollars in tax and TVA ratepayer money down the green drain.

One bright spot in the manufacturing picture these days is firearms, ammunition and accessories. Everyplace I check for reloading supplies is out of stock and backordered for months. They all say they’re adding staff and working extra shifts. Meanwhile, I can’t get what I need. It’s not just the reloading components that are out of stock, but stuff like dies as well.
They may not be “green” jobs, but I’ll bet you can convert those solar panel factories into bullet foundries fairly easily, unless you expect to run the lead furnaces on PV Solar power …

Physics Major

A possible sighting of Dark Matter was announced today, April3 (not April1).
LinkText Here

Vuk
You might be interested in this graph
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph01.png
tonyb

John Bell says April 3, 2013 at 12:09 pm
Hydraulic Hybrids – I used to do engineering work on the UPS hydraulic hybrid truck … I would like to see the technology make it in to the mainstream, but it seems that this type of hybrid is too expensive, noisy and inefficient.

Geez, John, isn’t their a kind of ‘friction’ problem with fluids pumped through hoses and hydraulic motors contrasted with standard gear boxes, clutches and belts even? Laminar vs turbulent fluid flow and all that vs smooth rotating shaft movement in a suitable ball bearing?
.

mike

Overlooked by nearly all of the climate-science “community” is some recently-revealed, dramatic footage of the “team’s” heretofore secret, initiation ceremony in which a loyal, brain-washed, suck-up novice, of demonstrated, party-line reliability to the “cause”, concludes his novitiate and, with much pomp, receives his made-parasite “wings” and access code to the tenured-cadre trough in reward for his many years of useful-tool, scut-work, lefty-hack, exploited-drudge, hive-toady, gofer, conditioned-reflex devotion to his tax-payer, rip-off betters.
Google: “wiki imago”. WARNING!–the images may be disturbing to some viewers.

Congrats on the Bloggie Award
[WUWT readers deserve the credit. — mod.]

Can anyone point me to a source of gridded wind-speed data for the UK? Preferably daily resolution or better. I’ve found monthly data (link below) but I’m looking for something of a higher resolution.
http://data.gov.uk/dataset/ukcp09-gridded-monthly-values-mean-wind-speed
Any assistance gratefully received.

Hi Tony
Thanks I’ll have a go at it. In mean time don’t neglect your tom’s patch, summer after next (2014,15) looks it is going to be a degree or two warmer than last lot.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAP-SST.htm
(graph two)

Ian W

Chris @njsnowfan says:
April 3, 2013 at 10:37 am
I have posted this before but only one response.
Man made static is distorting the worlds surface temp data BUT Man made BTU Heat emmisions released everyday into the atmospher(Manufacturing, gas flare, autos, homes, pavement ect.) is keeping temps in a range the past 16 years. The earth is a giant green house and when heat is released in a green house it takes time to escape or absorbed by the water in it.. There are trillions? of BTU’s released as heat every day bymankind.
The sun has been very quiet for many years but that mankind BTU heat being released everyday is keeping temps stable is my feeling.
Please look at the world tempature chart and you will see in 2008 when the world economy was at a stand still the temps fell and a spotless sun. Mankind BTU heat emmisions fell and so did world surface temps.
Arctic is melting faster every year due to High altitude jet exhust emissions BC being deposited in the N hem ice and snow caps is my feeling also.
Thanks

Chris
There is an anthropogenic warming effect from all the air conditioners, central heating furnaces, car engines etc etc. There is no doubt that exists. However, the amounts involved a dwarfed by the energy removed by the water cycle for example.
From http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html
• 1) – Total energy released through cloud/rain formation:
An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rainbands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 10^16 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives
5.2 x 10^19 Joules/day or
6.0 x 10^14 Watts.
This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity – an incredible amount of energy produced!
• Method 2) – Total kinetic energy (wind energy) generated:
For a mature hurricane, the amount of kinetic energy generated is equal to that being dissipated due to friction. The dissipation rate per unit area is air density times the drag coefficient times the windspeed cubed (See Emanuel 1999 for details). One could either integrate a typical wind profile over a range of radii from the hurricane’s center to the outer radius encompassing the storm, or assume an average windspeed for the inner core of the hurricane. Doing the latter and using 40 m/s (90 mph) winds on a scale of radius 60 km (40 n.mi.), one gets a wind dissipation rate (wind generation rate) of
1.3 x 10^17 Joules/day or
1.5 x 10^12Watts.
This is equivalent to about half the world-wide electrical generating capacity – also an amazing amount of energy being produced!

The same order of magnitude of energy is liberated by any large depression and then there is the band of weather around the equator the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone with continual severe storms…. These systems are liberating huge amounts of energy from the surface which are then continually radiated away as the water vapor condenses into rain or ice way above the so called Effective Radiation Level and as it is latent heat it is not subject to Stefan Boltzmann limitations.
These calculations do not take into account albedo increases due to clouds formed in hurricanes storms and depressions that will act to reduce input energy at the same time as radiating out energy. The water cycle is driven by the energy input from the surface – so all the air conditioners, central heating furnaces, car engines etc etc. just speed up what is an extremely efficient heat engine. This is Willis’ thermostat at work.
From my point of view the efficiency of the system at removing heat greatly exceeds any possible forcing from CO2.

polski

Richardscourtney
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth
Thanks for the explanation and in short “they suck” if I read your post correctly. Do the models offer any kind of useful information or do they just consume computer time at a huge rate?

OldWeirdHarold

Yikes.

Forcing from doubling from 280 to 560 = 5.35ln(560/280) = 3.71
3.71 * .5 = 1.85C per doubling.

Not only did the 5.35 get plucked out of absolutely nowhere, but the math isn’t even correct.
And a calculation isn’t a measurement, a measurement is a measurement.

davidmhoffer

richardscourtney;
I think you missed a chapter 😉
The CG3 password is out, and has been sent to select recipients, of which Anthony is one. The problem is that the CG3 emails have not been scrubbed for personal info etc like CG1 and CG2 were. They are leaking out a bit at a time, but it sounds so far like there’s nothing really new in them:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/