Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:14pm PT
|
wow, The Chief won't let it go...
Chiloe can do the analysis, you cannot...I haven't gotten around to reproducing the original paper on it (the one from which I posted the table above).
The data is out there and is available for analysis. If you can't do the analysis you shouldn't dump on those that can... you should just admit you're clueless and move on...
and The Chief, you're clueless.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:21pm PT
|
Kman,
I actually took a look at your quote and found more articles by mark Z Jacobson on the path to sustainable energy, plus
Global and U.S. Roadmaps for converting from fossil fuels.
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html
http://www.ted.com/speakers/mark_z_jacobson
http://article.wn.com/view/2014/04/25/Stanford_Climate_Scientist_Mark_Jacobson_Addresses_Climate_C_t/
14 different talks
Wind + battery powered vehicles were most promising, even with the old technology from 2008. http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/10.3155-1047-3289.58.11.1386.pdf
One lessor section of your quote said:
"Public dollars also need to go to the equally important, though less glamorous projects and services that will help us prepare for the coming heavy weather. That includes things like hiring more firefighters and improving storm barriers. And it means coming up with new, nonprofit disaster insurance programs so that people who have lost everything to a hurricane or a forest fire are not left at the mercy of a private insurance industry"
I actually think this is can be a wrong approach. The government can only afford certain things that benefit everyone, and can not afford to do things like subsidizing those who live in a floodplain, who simply rebuild in the same risky spot, like we did after Katrina and Sandy. Local groups will have to solve their issues. Big government should only encourage good response, not pay for it.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:25pm PT
|
Those of you with brains,
please do not feed the simpletons and trolls.
It is not possible to have a rational discussion with someone who is incapable of that goal.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:36pm PT
|
The Chief
More like your bullshet interpretation and distortion. The UK MET folks stated that 2014 was not the Warmest after all their analysis of their own data, HadCRTU4.
they did an analysis, can you point to a paper?
and anyway, there are many independent analyses as I posted above, they tend to agree...
when that happens it's a good thing.
by the way, the possible fact that 2014 was the warmest year does not contradict the statement that it was among the 10 warmest years, that's pretty simple logic, and if you don't understand that then you really are a wanker.
wank away...
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:54pm PT
|
We can say with confidence that 2014 is one of ten warmest years in the series and that it adds to the set of near-record temperatures we have seen over the last two decades."
Not surprising since 2014 has the highest anomaly in their dataset, and thus is the warmest in the dataset, just like Chiloe has been saying.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 08:33pm PT
|
you mistake a press release for a scientific paper, The Chief, which is about what I would expect... you can't tell the difference.
and even that press release does not say the 2014 was not the warmest year... it says that it was one of the 10 warmest... which leaves open the possibility that it was the warmest...
but somehow that logic escapes you.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 08:34pm PT
|
What part of 2014 is NOT the warmest that they've seen according to UK MET OFFICE and their final analysis of their own data HadCRUT4 don't you, EDH, Chiloe and the rest not understand.
From your link, Chief:
Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 08:43pm PT
|
That's all word jugglery.
It's always used when they don't totally want to commit.
It's a well known method in all the circles to "play it safe" .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 08:48pm PT
|
rick writes:
Let's talk about a real world , but unintended ,experiment Ed. On Sunday we were both outdoors in very similar atmospheric conditions of clear skies, low particulate levels, low humidity, relatively still air. In the direct sw of sunlight all objects, our bodies, the rock, the equipment, absorbed radiation rapidly and diffused it slightly less rapidly which caused the sensation of warmth. It was downright toasty. In my case at the top of pitch three we were on the edge of a rounded buttress, though not up against the face of the rock which absorbed the direct sunlight as a black (or probably more precisely a grey) body. On the ledge, the sensation of warmth seemed less, probably ten degrees or more less. Stepping to the left around the buttress and out of the sunlight it suddenly seemed thirty degrees or so less warm. Granted the RH was low, but considering the the claims of LW radiation absorbtion and downwelling attributed to well mixed atmospheric CO2 one wouldn't expect such a degree of variation in temps. The LW radiation emmitted from the grey bodies were escaping the lowest troposhere largely unimpeded. What gives? Where is the effect ascribed to the mythical molecule?
only 30ºF?
the Moon has the identical incident solar irradiance as the Earth, it's albedo is a bit lower, it's black body temperature is higher (does rick actually know what "black body temperature" means?)
The Moon's atmosphere is tenuous, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
the difference between being in the Sun and in the shade is +250ºF to -250ºF,
The Earth has a huge atmosphere in comparison, with a well characterized composition and with radiative properties of the constituents well known. In that atmosphere, you felt a 30ºF difference in and out of the Sun.
The daytime to night time temperature may have been as much as 40ºF in the Valley this weekend... an order of magnitude smaller than if the Earth had no atmosphere...
CO2 played a huge role in that, just what the physics says it should do, physics that was well known in 1896.
I think you might try a little less rhetoric, rick and learn a bit more about being quantitative, stuff that sounds good to you doesn't have to be real, and you can actually demonstrate that with some elementary calculations. But as long as you have been posting, you've never done or attempted to do a calculation. I can understand why you are afraid to do it, you might find that you've been wrong all these years.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 28, 2015 - 09:02pm PT
|
Splatter, nice find on the links, I which I had time to visit the 14 talks.
It's true, the Gov't cannot provide the structure for everything. But it's interesting to note the services that are not so easily provided for by private industry, in it's own interest.
The puzzle is a complex one, and I think it's going to involve many pieces coming together if we're to solve it.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 09:26pm PT
|
They did state it the warmest year in the record. The joint warmest.
No year is warmer, in the record
joint warmest year in the record .
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 09:31pm PT
|
EDH, just like the NOAA's and NASA press releases that stated 2014 is the warmest according to their data. Neither was a peer rev'd scientific paper yet you and others here jumped right on it.
that's why I looked up the paper, and posted the reference on this thread...
if you actually read what's on the webpage, and follow the links, you come to this page:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-1
which has a reference to the paper that describes the methodology of how the probabilities are calculated and the rankings made... the paper that I referred to up thread.
It's a peer reviewed paper... it does not have 2014 data in it since it was written in 2013, but the methodology used in the paper was used to rank the 2014 data once it was available.
Why don't you read the paper, and reproduce the analysis for HadCRUT4 and see if you agree with Chiloe.
Oh, you can't.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 11:16pm PT
|
The moon's atmospheric content and therefore pressure is essentially zero. No atmosphere means no parcels of gases heating and expanding as they slow radiations escape , therefore no difference in pressures to create circulation. So of course the exposures recieving the full 1368wm2 versus those recieving no direct radiation would differ so much. My scenario was different in that i was in virtually the same well mixed parcel of terrestrial air (only a matter of a few feet away and in less than 5mph wind) so I was surprised by the 40f difference ( 10 between the rock face with near right angle sun exposure and the large flat ledge and 30 more between sunlight on the ledge and shade) . So the radiative effect of downwelling LW from 400ppm of CO2 seemed nil. While on the toasty rock face I was not only recieving direct solar radiation, but also heat conducted from the directly radiated rock face , and warmed air convecting upwards. No need to resort to ghg theory to explain it if you accept that atmospheric density and gravity on a rotating sphere with a shielding magnetic field equals its temperature gradient. After all, don't all atmospheric molecules that are moved/vibrated by conduction or excitation by an escaping photon meet the definition of heat.
On Venus, which has an atmospheric density 90 times that of earth, and a side in darkness as long as its year the entire globe has a uniform surface temperature. Why? It has a much thicker cloud layer and therefore higher albedo translating into much less visible light reaching the surface but at the same time virtually no protective magnetic field allowing more energetic portions of the solar spectrum to reach and heat the surface. With one side in a year long day and the other in a year long night isn't the extremely dense atmosphere
and resulting high rate of conductive heat transfer a better explanation of its uniformity of temps than from downwelling LW from molecules recieving no solar radiation to reemit radiation on the dark side?
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 11:21pm PT
|
Axiom is defined as a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without
controversy.
Axiom: Earths climate is better now with more CO2. Evidence: record world
food crop harvests.
Axiom: Chiloe is a climate denier. Chiloe suggests the greening of the
Earth is climate disaster. His evidence: A pet theory unsupported by
reality.
“Well documented evidence shows that concurrently with the increased CO2
levels, extensive, large, and continuing increase in biomass is taking
place globally — reducing deserts, turning grasslands to savannas,
savannas to forests, and expanding existing forests."
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2014/2/v34n1-6.pdf
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 11:24pm PT
|
and resulting high rate of conductive heat transfer a better explanation of its uniformity of temps than from downwelling LW from molecules recieving no solar radiation to reemit radiation on the dark side?
no, and it demonstrates that you have no idea of radiation transport... the dark side?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 11:41pm PT
|
Yes, the dark side since it takes nearly the length of its year (270 days?) For one rotation of the globe.
Look Ed, you guys are having severe credibility problems explaining earths climate through ghg theory and radiative transfer alone. Im just gaming out other possibilities to explain the observed departure between the blessed models and reality. Of course, I will be wrong more often than right but you need help since you seem to be going down with a sinking ship. Think of it this way; nine of the items I throw out to save you turn out to be anchors, but the tenth is a life preserver
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 11:47pm PT
|
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pierre_Martre/publication/269992624_Rising_temperatures_reduce_global_wheat_production/links/549d27370cf2d6581ab4b050.pdf
Asseng, S., F. Ewert, P. Martre, R.P. Rötter, D.B. Lobell, D. Cammarano, B.A. Kimball, M.J. Ottman, G.W. Wall, J.W. White, M.P. Reynolds, P.D. Alderman, P.V. V. Prasad, P.K. Aggarwal, J. Anothai, B. Basso, C. Biernath, A.J. Challinor, G. De Sanctis, J. Doltra, E. Fereres, M. Garcia-Vila, S. Gayler, G. Hoogenboom, L.A. Hunt, R.C. Izaurralde, M. Jabloun, C.D. Jones, K.C. Kersebaum, A-K. Koehler, C. Müller, S. Naresh Kumar, C. Nendel, G. O'Leary, J.E. Olesen, T. Palosuo, E. Priesack, E. Eyshi Rezaei, A.C. Ruane, M.A. Semenov, I. Shcherbak, C. Stockle, P. Stratonovitch, T. Streck, I. Supit, F. Tao, P.J. Thorburn, K. Waha, E. Wang, D. Wallach, J. Wolf, Z. Zhao, and Y. Zhu, 2014: Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production. Nature Clim. Change, 5, no. 2, 143-147, doi:10.1038/nclimate2470.
Crop models are essential tools for assessing the threat of climate change to local and global food production. Present models used to predict wheat grain yield are highly uncertain when simulating how crops respond to temperature. Here we systematically tested 30 different wheat crop models of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project against field experiments in which growing season mean temperatures ranged from 15°C to 32°C, including experiments with artificial heating. Many models simulated yields well, but were less accurate at higher temperatures. The model ensemble median was consistently more accurate in simulating the crop temperature response than any single model, regardless of the input information used. Extrapolating the model ensemble temperature response indicates that warming is already slowing yield gains at a majority of wheat-growing locations. Global wheat production is estimated to fall by 6% for each °C of further temperature increase and become more variable over space and time.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2015 - 11:53pm PT
|
Where are the modelled studies indicating % reduction of crop yields with each 1c reduction in temperature? Same for each 10ppm reduction of CO2?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!