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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hydraulic Hybrids — Peugeot showed a car propelled by a hydraulic hybrid at the Geneva Auto Show two weeks ago. They have announced plans to produce such a car. They have also invited other auto companies to help them commercialize the technology.
JIm S writes “What gases are going down in ppm?”
I suspect all of them. Assuming the added CO2 increases the total weight of the atmopshere, then all the other gases will be reduced by a very small amount.
I’m wondering if Hansen is- despite his activism- going to be doing PR for nuclear?
Open Thread? OK, remember Mr FOIA’s request for bitcoin donations? Seems he was pretty smart…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-03/bitcoins-go-parabolic
&more Open Thread: the NORKS have a Plan to make you pay for all your sins! ☺
What if the temperatures are being measured by relativistic thermometers?
polski says:
April 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm
“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”
Last I heard from the IPCC is that none of them simulates the QBO so none of them simulates the Earth.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/279.htm
But that’s not the point of climate science anyway…
davidmhoffer:
Thankyou for your useful and informative post at April 3, 2013 at 1:38 pm.
You are right: I was not aware of that. I stand corrected.
Thankyou.
Richard
The internet sure can be good for some unexpected entertainment. Here in Germany I’m seeing an advertisement at the upper right of the WUWT homepage for the DVD release of a movie called “Mann tut was Mann kann” (“Man does what man can”; or, alternately, “Mann does what Mann can”).
What’s the time frame supposed to be for atmospheric temperature increases due to a doubling of CO2 according to ‘mainstream’ AGW theory? Is there a generally accepted idea about this from any particular source anybody is aware of?
New reader seeks info. Dean Brooks’ paper:
http://declineeffect.com
[Link: The ‘Pot Lid’ hypothesis]
appears relevant to this blog, as it appears to question some (all?) of the GCM.s; but the thread goes cold. Any further links would be appreciated.
Also there’s V Toth’s paper (if it hasn’t already been discussed):
arXiv:1002.2980 [pdf, ps, other]
btw A quick search of the IPCC site gave me “Arrhenius” hits- 4, “Virial”- 0, which makes me wonder..
I still haven’t seen a non-circular argument that shows that climate sensitivity is not temperature dependent itself. It is one of the problems with the whole construct that in order to show sensitivity to CO2 increase you have to first ASSUME there is a sensitivity to CO2 and not some other factor or combination thereof, or at least that all the other factors are in some way dependent upon CO2 for their effect. The simple logarithmic relationship is one of many things that does not pass the smell test in the climate system overall. It might work for first order estimations, but I doubt it is the whole story.
polski:
Your post at April 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm
quotes from my post about climate models at April 3, 2013 at 12:22 pm
and asks me
That depends on what you mean by the word “useful”.
Each climate model is constructed from the understandings of climate of its constructors. Therefore, a model output indicates implications of those understandings of climate: it does not indicate anything about the behaviour of the real climate system because each model is of a different system (see my post you are querying).
Hence, outputs of climate models can be very useful because they can be USED to observe differences between
(a) the indications of a model
(i.e. the implications of the modellers’ understandings)
and
(b) the behaviour of the real climate system.
Those differences are heuristic information which is very useful because it indicates needs for further climate study to correct detected misunderstandings of the climate system.
The outputs of climate models can be MISUSED to project future climate according to the understandings built into the model. There is no reason to think any of these projections indicate future reality and at most the output of only one (probably none) of the climate models would.
However, these climate model projections of future climate are useful because they can be used as a tool to scare politicians into providing more research funds for the modellers and their colleagues.
Richard
Beta Blocker writes “What if the temperatures are being measured by relativistic thermometers?”
I have no idea. But global temperatures are measured with thermometers in Stevenson screens, or the “brightness” temperature by satellite. So I suspect you question is irrelevant.
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 12:19 pm
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.
———————————–
This has been discussed elsewhere and the discussion always states (without any evidence) that at very low concentrations, or very high ones, the logarthmic doubling and temperature relationship breaks down.
But what is rarely discussed is the other common claim, that CO2 levels have been remarkably stable for many thousands of years. So if CO2 levels have been so stable, how can the relationship between temperature and CO2 increase be so confidently understood?
The battle over wind turbines heats up as NextEra takes a stand
“Cease and Desist” order sent. Ontario Wind resistance must quit Picking on NextEra of Florida.
http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2013/04/03/nexterror-energy-sent-me-a-cease-and-desist-demand-what-would-you-do/
Wind Turbines above all! May the eagles rest in peace!
I believe CFCs are going down, and methane may be going down, or anyway going up much less than predicted.
For some reason I really like this graph:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
Originally posted by
D.B. Stealey says:
March 5, 2013 at 12:39 pm:
“We are currently in a cool period of the Holocene. But global temperatures have been amazingly constant, only fluctuating by a minuscule 0.8ºC over the past century and a half. By using a normal Y-axis, it is clear that global warming has stalled during this entire time period.”
I assume the Y-axis is degrees F it doesn’t say. Does anyone know the origin of this graph?
Couldn’t find it at GISS. Haven’t seen too many sites (media/newspapers, etc.) posting the above graph.
He also posted this graph:
http://i.imgur.com/s19MOMd.jpg
I just got a popup saying that Microsoft has identified WUWT as a phishing site.
Since Microsoft is known to harbor global warming alarmists, I suspect this is an attempt to keep people from visiting this site and posting here.
Anthony, I think your webmaster should look into this for you. Also, to other regular posters here: has anyomne else gotten such a popup? If so please say so.
And if it is Microsoft doing this, would seem you have a gigabucks lawsuit for libel against old Billyboy and his fellow alarmies.
Actually, I should say, we’ve had hydraulic drives in cars since the late 1940’s in the form of Torque Converter equipped (automatic) transmissions. Our 1964 Chevy had a
two-speed Powerglide automatic transmission. GM originally introduced the Hydromatic series of automatic transmissions in 1939 for the 1940 model year. Notably, various vehicles in WW2 were equipped with ‘hydraulic’ transmissions as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydramatic
Later incarnations, of course, ‘improved’ the design incorporating a clutch to “lockup” the torque converter to avoid otherwise inadvertent slipping (and associated inefficiencies) for the purpose of wringing out that last mpg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter
.
Hmmm! Anthony is on a travel day the same day James Hansen retires?
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time
Just sayin’………….
Owen in GA says:
April 3, 2013 at 2:21 pm
I still haven’t seen a non-circular argument that shows that climate sensitivity is not temperature dependent itself. It is one of the problems with the whole construct that in order to show sensitivity to CO2 increase you have to first ASSUME there is a sensitivity to CO2 and not some other factor or combination thereof,
>>>>>>>>>
Oh, but it is SO much worse than that.
The general meme is CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2 = +1 degree.
Even introductory physics says you cannot possibly simplify the matter to that kind of an estimate. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of physics that relates Power in w/m2 to Temperature in degrees Kelvin is:
P = 5.67 * 10^-8 * T^4
So, if you’re in a spot on earth where it is +30 C, or 303 K, an extra 3.7 w/m2 would only get you +0.6 degrees. If you were someplace cold, say -30 C, or 243 K, an extra 3.7 w/m2 would get you about +1.1 degrees. How do you average this across the entire earth with temps varying by latitude, season, time of day and altitude? This is the kind of math problem that would give even Einstein fits.
But that is actually over simplifying the issue. Is the “average” of 3.7 w/m2 itself a meaningful number? It is not.
At +30 C, upward radiance from earth surface is about 478 w/m2. At -30 C, upward radiance is about 198 w/m2. So, there is no way that a doubling of CO2 has a uniform result of 3.7 w/m2 in the first place. Doubling of CO2 cannot capture 3.7 w/m2 from both +478 and + 198, can it? Of course it can’t.
So the “average temperature” we need to calculate a sensitivity against doesn’t exist, and the “average forcing” we need to apply to the “average temperature” also doesn’t exist. But it is so much worse than that….
In the tropics, water vapour might be as high as 40,000 ppm. In the arctic it is darn near zero. Since water vapour and CO2 have overlapping absorption spectra, CO2’s effects are a greater percentage of the total GHE in cold/dry regions than it is in regions with high water vapour content. So even if you could come up with a mathematical description of how many w/m2 to expect CO2 to re-radiate back to earth based on a given surface temperature, you still have to adjust that number for the amount the number would change based on water vapour in that specific local.
Calculating sensitivity is simple? I think not.
I have a post on:
http://climateclash.com/the-limits-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-effects-and-control/
which has had many favorable reviews including one from Will Happer.who made helpful suggestions on its presentation.
I own the copyright on the article and Ed Berry of Climate Clash owns the one on its presentation. We both grant permission to use it, but Ed Berry requests that comments come through the above website for keeping track of them.
Bryce Johnson
An article in scienceblogs.com (http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/04/02/three-iconic-graphs-showing-the-climate-fix-were-in/#comment-2009) by Peter Gleick was brought to my attention from Tom Nelsons blog. In it are three graphs of CO2, Temperature deviation and Arctic Ice Volume. The one that caught piqued my interest was the temperature graph with a nice exponential curve running through it (basically showing runaway heating). 1
The problem with the graph is that it does not even represent the data that it is supposedly sourced from. Never mind the various discussions on data tampering which cool the past (which this data shows). This graph has removed the early 1900’s cooling, minimized the 1940’s cooling and now show a more or less steady progression of rising temperatures.1
I can’t vouch for the other graphs as no source has been supplied. Why is it that certain writers must adjust (tamper, falsify, whatever word you want) the data to make their case. The data either shows it or it does not. End of Story.
Richard
Ok, now global warming is the culprit of our nice spring winter: http://weather.yahoo.com/why-cold-spring-201231727.html