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.
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.
Jo Nova has post up about the hotspot, or rather the lack of it. She quotes AR5 draft:
quote
In summary, there is high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.
unquote
Only medium agreement… I take that to mean ‘even though the evidence is robust we can’t get the believers to agree that it matters’.
This really deserves a lot of attention: as Jo Nova says ‘… instead they deny the importance of 28 million weather-balloons, call the missing heat a “travesty”, they pretend that if you slap enough caveats on the 1990 report and ignore the actual direct quotes they made at the time, then possibly, just maybe, their models are doing OK, and through sheer bad luck 3000 ocean buoys, millions of weather balloons, and 30 years of satellite records are all biased in ways that hides the true genius of the climate models.’
JF
“Another thing that makes the 5.35*ln(560/280) equation rather meaningless IMO is the fact that isn’t very non-linear.”
sadly it is correct. 5.35ln(c02a/C02b) is known, verified observation. The physics behind it were developed and refined by the US Air force. We use that physics to develop working tested devices. Device that protect you day in and day out. its the same physics we use to design radars, ir seekers, cell phones.. anything that sends EM through the atmosphere.
The satillite “data” RSS and UAH.. both DEPEND on that physics being correct. because it is.
The logarithmic relationship ultimately is just curve fitting to provide something that’s easy to work into climate models. It doesn’t work for high concentrations either.
If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Use Modtran or other first principles sources, just like you don’t (I assume) use the approximation of g = 9.8 m/s^2 because gravity isn’t a constant over the surface of Earth.
##############
you ding dong. If he wants a more accurate number than 5.35ln() he should use a LBL prediction code. MODTRAN approximates these higher fidelity transfer codes.
Steven Mosher says:
April 3, 2013 at 11:07 am
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….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That means ALL possible influences must first be identified and then measure. Good luck with that. Just dealing with a close system chemical process is enough to get the Chem Engineers tearing their hair out at times where confounding variables can be identified using designed experiments.
The earth’s climate does not allow designed experiments so the process of identification and determination of confounding variables is not only a PITA but at times close to impossible.
It appears, from the ENSO page, that the cold tongue is emerging in the NINO1 region a few weeks earlier than it did last year. Anyone for La Nada 2013?
polski says:
April 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm
….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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First the computers can only work with the information given. If you leave out factors or get the relationships wrong it is GIGO.
Second the IPCC mandate is to hang humans not to determine the factors that effect climate, therefore that mandate will warp the input and outcome of the computers as well as the funding of research.
The IPCC mandate states:
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:17 pm
davidmhoffer says:
April 3, 2013 at 8:53 pm
Physics Major;
So until you get rid of that infinity, you don’t have the correct equation. QED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There’s only so much detail that you can put into any given explanation. If your point is that the relationship cannot possibly hold for very low concentrations of CO2, you are correct. For the range of concentration we are dealing with in the climate discussion, a background level of 280 and current levels of 390, the relationship is valid.
David,
Please give me a link to the calculations that show the the temperature increase that will result from increasing the CO2 concentration from zero to 400 ppm. If you can do that, I will shut up.
###########################
go ask John Christy or Roy spencer for the radiative transfer codes they use. You could start by looking at any LBL transfer codes. If you were an engineer building a sensor that had to see through C02 ( or any other gas, water vapor etc ) you would have these codes in your physics tool chest. You cant build a working device without understanding what C02 or H2O does to a transmission signal. This physics is tested. Its engineering. One way its tested is by going to regions of the world where the atmosphere is different ( like more dry) and measuring downwelling and upwelling signals. So, for example, you test in antarctica.
now, this physics didnt start as climate science. It started in the department of defense.
Why? Imagine a heat seeking missile on the ground, looking into the sky. What does it see?
For example, I will tell you how we used this physics in the design of the stealth fighter.
The plane had an IR signature ( different wavelengths for hot parts, burning fuel, and aero heating) When you fly at 50K feet you have to prove to the government that your IR signature will not be visible to a seeker on the ground. That physics, the physics of how signals
travel through the atmosphere used to be classified ( MODTRAN was classified when I used it )
Any way, the physics codes are used to predict the incident signature of an airplane after that energy has propagated through the atmosphere. The propagation is a function of the gases and the distance. You have to calculate this for all sorts of different conditions. tropical, arctic, etc.
An interesting side note. At one stage during the design of a certain unamed vehicle we had to test the effect of venting C02 to hide engine exhaust. very easy. you take your Air force validated transfer code ( like MODTRAN) you calculate the signature with a standard C02 concentration in the atmosphere. Then you calculate the same signature with double the C02. Then you hit the test range and see how well it actually works.
sound weird? how about this
“Plasma stealth is a phenomenon proposed to use ionized gas (plasma) to reduce RCS of vehicles. Interactions between electromagnetic radiation and ionized gas have been studied extensively for many purposes, including concealing vehicles from radar. Various methods might form a layer or cloud of plasma around a vehicle to deflect or absorb radar, from simpler electrostatic to RF more complex laser discharges, but these may be difficult in practice.”
read this
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=21&ved=0CDUQFjAAOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.library.iitb.ac.in%2Fxmlui%2Fbitstream%2Fhandle%2F10054%2F613%2F5740.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ei=saJdUZziA-rx0wGRsoAI&usg=AFQjCNG68c4MONx3ulydrPYQXwHh0K297Q&sig2=cjmC2KF1veRCMbuowQHtmA
@Julian Flood – Dean Brooks’ paper:
http://declineeffect.com
[Link: The ‘Pot Lid’ hypothesis]
claims the tropospheric “hotspot” is an artifact (see my comment above)
So its April 4th 17:00 British Summer Time, on the south coast of England, and global warming is dropping out of the sky, Splendid….
@Mosher. If you would be kind enough to post a link on the US Air Force calibration of the CO2 equation I will continue with my homework.
Temperature records for London go back some 300 years. The BBC weather man solemnly proclaimed that today (4th April 2013) was the coldest April day on the record. It’s still snowing in SW.
Steve Mosher;
go ask John Christy or Roy spencer for the radiative transfer codes they use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can ask, but that’s not how they do it. Read Spencer’s site.
Further, you (yet again) use examples that are dead wrong. We know how the cell phone signal that arrives at our phone relates to the signal that left the cell tower. We have enough information at the cell phone to know what the cell tower sent. We have precisely ZERO information about the part of the signal that got lost between the cell tower and the cell phone. We don’t know what happened to it, or where it happened. We know absolutely NOTHING about the part of the signal that got absorbed by the atmosphere between the tower and the phone, and we don’t NEED to in order to make the phone work. But for THIS discussion we WOULD need to know precisely what happened to the part of the signal that never got to the phone AND WE DON’T.
Ric Werme says:
“old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 3:33 am
Anyway, when NASA used “black body” to figure out the Moon’s surface “temperature” to land Apollo, they off by 20% or so.
Ric
I did a little search and came up with this:
The study questions the numeric bedrock of the greenhouse gas theory
(GHG) by applying data collected by NASA decades ago. It seems during
the Apollo Moon landings era NASA devised a whole new set of hitherto
unreported equations, more reliable than those relied upon by supporters
of the GHG theory, to get Neil Armstrong’s carbon boot prints safely
planted on that airless Sea of Tranquility.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sci.environment/G58PsNpgqp8
Physics Major says:
April 3, 2013 at 9:56 pm
So, it doesn’t work for low concentrations, but it must be valid for for highmedium concentrations? How scientific is that?
It is very scientific. Some properties are macroscopic and others are microscopic. For example, we all know that temperature and sound exist. However neither can be measured with only a single gas molecule.
You cannot “calculate” that which has never been measured first.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
Please provide me with the relevant balance sheet.
MangoChutney says: @ur momisugly April 4, 2013 at 12:21 am
If diarrhoea kills 1.5 m per annum – 1.5 m more deaths than has actually been proven to be caused by cAGW – why are we wasting so many $billions on cAGW and not spending more on fighting for clean water and sanitation for the worlds poor?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because TPTB want them dead and they really really want the control over energy and the tax revenue they hope CAGW scam will create.
In case you have any illusions about benevolent government, see DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel
sounds like UNEP wants another huge bureaucracy to pretend to police the CO2 trading corruption! read all:
March 2013: pdf (13 pages): UNEP Global Environment Alert Service:
The impact of corruption on climate change: threatening emissions trading mechanisms?
This bulletin provides an overview of recent discussions about the impact of corruption on environmental governance, with a focus on emissions trading. It reviews new definitions and the latest corruption assessment methodologies in order to emphasise the broader challenges faced by GHG trading mechanisms and climate finance…
The implementation of cap-and-trade systems in both developed and developing countries has been recurrently tainted by cases of fraud and bribery, abuses of power, and other conventional forms of corruption. Corruption in this sector has also taken more original forms, such as the strategic exploitation of ‘bad science’ and scientific uncertainties for profit, the manipulation of GHG market prices, and anti-systemic speculation (Lohmann, 2007; TI, 2012a; Wara, 2007). The challenge that corruption poses to climate finance also contributes to broader debates about the impact of corruption in environmental governance…
http://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Mar2013_EnvCorruption.pdf
old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 10:16 am
The main post there says:
Which is what I I was trying to get people to pay attention to. Unfortunately, the post also says “But, despite the U.S. government knowing since the 1960’s that the blackbody equations were of no use to real-world science,” “The paper tells us how far out Stefan-Boltzmann’s equations could be,” and “But it isn’t just Earth’s Moon that doesn’t support the GHG theory.”
This is crap – the S-B equation works just fine, but by itself it doesn’t describe climate, using just it can lead to big errors for obvious reasons, and that the frigging Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere so it of course it doesn’t support the GHG theory.
Basically, the only thing in the report is that a first order approximation of the Moon’s surface temperature (a black body) is not good enough for government work.
And that’s why the report doesn’t warrant the attention it received.
Ric Werme says:
April 4, 2013 at 5:21 pm
old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 10:16 am
“the frigging Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere so it of course it doesn’t support the GHG theory.”
I think you missed the point. If the “Back Body” equations could not be used in the Apollo landing because errors, then what “good” is the “Back Body” equations used to arrive at .5C for re radiation of CO2. And, wouldn’t the errors make “climate “sensitivity” be off as well? I would think a physicist or mathematician would cringe if they knew there were errors in their work.
Maybe it is close enough for “climate model work”.
Open Thread? OK…
Here is a bitcoin infographic. Enjoy! [Also]
old construction worker says:
April 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm
I think you missed my point. If the “Back Body” equations alone could not be used in the Apollo landing because thermal mass is important, ….
Climate and weather models have always dealt with thermal mass, that’s one of the reasons the coldest day of the year in temperate zones lags the winter solstice by a month or so. People know that, the models know that, NASA probably knew that too, but without knowing how heat is conducted through the lunar surface probably went with S-B alone as a “first pass” approximation. Heat conduction was one of the big unknowns and one of the goals of of the Surveyor probes (and I assume Luna).
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_1 :
Just because the first pass at calculating the Moon’s temperature was wrong, doesn’t mean the same flaw exists in Terran models, nor does it mean the knowledge “gained” from the lunar misstep is enough to show how to calculate climate sensitivity on Earth.
For example, I think one of the big errors in determining climate sensitivity is not accounting for increased convection. Nothing from that report provides any assistance in that.
Things have been very quiet on the Andreas Rossi E-Cat front of late. Part of the problem is a new partnership that might be a real business and Rossi hasn’t been as free with information as he has been. (Yeah, yeah, it could also be that cold fusion progress is as slow as the global temperature, but that would be a cheap shot to couple things to main topic of this blog 🙂 .)
It could also be I have been checking frequently lately, neither have others. At any rate….
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/03/rossi-reports-tests-concluded-results-positive/ includes this Rossi-speak. (I converted it from all-caps. You’re welcome.):
I’m not sure what plants these are. I hope there will be some announcement then, it’s easier to wait than research.
This two-stage thing is new too, there’s a little more speculation in the post.
[ …that I have [not] been checking recently … ? Mod]
@Kent Noonan
The abstract from this paper says a lot in a few words:
Abstract. The threat of dangerous climate change from anthropogenic global warming has decreased. Global temperature rose from 1975 to 1998, but since then has levelled off.
Sea level is now rising at about 1.5mm per year based on tide gauges, and satellite data suggests it may even be falling. Coral islands once allegedly threatened by drowning have actually increased in area.
Ice caps cannot possibly slide into the sea (the alarmist model) because they occupy kilometres-deep basins extending below sea level. Deep ice cores show a succession of annual layers of snow accumulation back to 760,000 years and in all that time never melted, despite times when the temperature was higher than it is today. Sea ice shows no change in 30 years in the Arctic.
Emphasis on the greenhouse effect stresses radiation and usually leads to neglect of important factors like convection. Water is the main greenhouse gas. The CO2 in the ocean and the atmosphere are in equilibrium: if we could remove CO2 from the atmosphere the ocean would give out more to restore the balance. Increasing CO2 might make the ocean less alkaline but never acid.
The sun is now seen as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases. There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate. Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling.
Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models. The UN’s main adviser, the IPCC, uses adjusted data for the input, their models and codes remain secret, and they do not accept responsibility for their projections.
Ollier c., 2013. Global warming and climate change: science and politics. Quaestiones Geographicae 32(1), Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań, pp. 61–66. DOI 10.2478/quageo-2013-0008, ISSN 0137-477X.
Link to full paper:
http://geoinfo.amu.edu.pl/qg/current/quageo-2013-0008.pdf
Ric Werme says:
April 6, 2013 at 5:19 am
[ …that I have [not] been checking recently … ? Mod]
Oops, right. Why is that typo so easy to make?