Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2013 - 05:46pm PT
|
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2013 - 05:56pm PT
|
Yeah,you floaters are RIGHT,nothing can be done about Climate Change.
How many posts in the last 2 days Chef?
You talk about hypocrites and people here needing a life,get one yourself .
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2013 - 06:11pm PT
|
Yeah Mono,but its only a 1.5f rise GLOBALLY.
HA.
|
|
Spitzer
climber
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2013 - 09:49pm PT
|
"Models assume any upper tropospheric warming also brings about upper tropospheric water-vapor increase as well, because they assume atmospheric relative humidity (RH) remains quasi-constant. But measurements and theoretical considerations of deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convective clouds indicate any increase of CO2 and its associated increase in global rainfall would lead to a reduction of upper tropospheric RH and a consequent enhancement (not curtailment) of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) to space."
-William M. Gray, Ph.D.
"As anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase it does not follow that upper-level water vapor will increase. If it does not, little global warming will result. Observation of middle tropospheric water vapor over the last few decades shows that water vapor has in fact been undergoing a small decrease. The assumed positive water vapor feedback as programmed into the GCM models is not occurring."
-William M. Gray, Ph.D., statement, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Sept 28, 2005
"Temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that rising carbon dioxide levels will lead to warming and increased water vapor."
-Ed Hartouni, Ph.D.
Somewhere in the last 20000 posts Ed has probably already addressed this in detail so I shouldn't ask. But I'm asking.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2013 - 10:09pm PT
|
Utter, desperate B.S. Ed. A 1% addition of CO2 does not equate to a 2.9c global temp increase. CO2, even manmade, is a natural feedback effect (both positive and negative in the upper layers of the atmosphere) to the IDENTIFIED natural climate drivers. CO2 is neither a very effective GHG nor does it magically trigger increased atmospheric water vapor-as the observational evidence shows.
Chief, can you please repost that most excellent wiki graph you posted earlier. Within it the two most prominent short to long term climate drivers are very obvious. Let's look at it and discuss it.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2013 - 10:36pm PT
|
Now take a good look at the graph professor. Besides the slight negative trend, which will grow steeper, what do you see? Allow me to answer for your foolish ass. In 1998 you see the huge spike of ENSO giving up a significant kick of heat to the atmosphere before the SST started to slightly decrease. The precipitous drop of 2008 was a direct response to the very deep solar minimum at the end of cycle 23, start of 24. In both 2008 and 2009 the sun had back to back years of 250 plus days of a spotless sun along with a very weakened magnetic field. These two climate drivers along with the Milankovich cycles are the primary climate drivers on Earth. PLEASE give us all a break and quit the tired hyping of the mythical molecule.
EDIT. The primary answer to your question is the most energetic solar cycle of the 20th century, cycle 19 from approx. 1953 to 1964, which was the start of the most energetic series of cycles for several thousand years. There was an uptick in temps in the late fifties coinciding with the peak of cycle 19, but we were in the midst of negative phases of prominent oceanic cycles so the temperatures overall stayed flat.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 12:13am PT
|
The modem on my satellite link needed to be reset, as it often does here in NV., so the delay in my response.
As you well know Ed, the atmosphere is a poor storehouse for heat (radiant energy),as the majority of it ( that not re-radiated earthward) is quickly lost to space. The oceans are exponentially more suited to storing the excess energy received, both in increased TSI and increased insolation from more cloudless skies, during periods of high solar activity. This excess heat is in turn periodically ( on the order of every thirty years) dissipated ,in varying degrees, into the atmosphere ( along with negative feedbacks like DMS which cause increased potential of cloud formation and positive feedbacks like CO2 outgassing into the atmosphere), alternately in negative oceanic phases, deep cold waters surface cooling the atmosphere. These cycles most likely oscillate from lunar and solar effects.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 12:51am PT
|
I understand that you were once a good climber ( as opposed to a dead climber), i know from listening to you that you bend nails seasonally when you are not digging arseholes out of snowbanks, but when and from where did you get your psychology degree Bruce? What are your qualifications?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 12:55am PT
|
Upthread I quoted John Mashey's description of AGU as a smorgasbord, and indeed it is. You can sample the state of the art across hundreds of different fields. Yesterday I learned more about the Plume Catalog and difficulties in pinning down exactly what and where mantle plumes are, in a session on "Linking the Earth's surface with the deep interior: Comparing predictions and observations of mantle plumes." Mantle plumes have gained wide but not universal acceptance, but even within that paradigm there seems to be a lot that's unsettled.
Today I dropped in on a different planet, a session on "Gale Crater, Mars: Comparing geochemistry and geomorphology from remote sensing, in situ measurements, laboratory data and terrestrial analogs." Interesting work, as researchers draw on a wide range of observations and experiments to understand the processes that formed Gale Crater, where Curiosity has found evidence that a freshwater lake existed 3.5 billion years ago.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 12:57am PT
|
Yes, but let's discuss your "psychology" first.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 01:10am PT
|
On climate topics at AGU today, the Bjerknes Lecture given by Judith Lean was one of the main events. Her 2008 paper coauthored with David Rind applied multivariate statistics to estimate the effects of solar, volcanic, ENSO and anthropogenic impacts on surface air temperatures; Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) took the Lean & Rind approach further, while confirming its basic result. (the Lean & Rind, and Foster & Rahmstorf, papers both intrigued me to the extent that I did my own version of their analysis to see how it worked; the results are somewhere upthread or I could bring them back if anyone is curious.)
Lean's talk compactly updated that earlier work, running through what is known about solar, volcanic, ENSO and anthropogenic effects drawing together both statistical and modeling approaches. Along the way she quickly showed why the famous denier memes (it's the sun, stupid! etc.) don't hold water. A clear and effective review.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 01:31am PT
|
Okay, exactly as i suspected, your psychology is purloined from the electronic pages of grist.org and other similar progressive wacko websites.Case closed jackass, you are not even in the same league.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 01:36am PT
|
Finished the day with a fascinating (to me) session about sea ice, in which a series of presenters addressed puzzles. Such as why Arctic minimum extent in 2012 and 2013 were so different, or why Arctic ice is in clear retreat, while Antarctic sea ice appears stable or possibly increasing.
These puzzles weren't solved but some pieces were filled in. Regarding interannual variations around the downward trend in Arctic sea ice, separate presentations by Walt Meier and Marika Holland point toward the growing influence of late spring and summer weather, affecting relatively thin and mobile new ice (unlike the thick multiyear ice that formerly characterized much of that Arctic ice pack).
One reason the Arctic sea ice has responded to warming has been the influence of rivers carrying North American and Eurasian continental heat to the sea; there are no such Antarctic rivers. But why does Antarctic sea ice seem to be expanding? Ozone-related hypotheses don't seem to work, those effects should be causing ice to decrease. More plausible causes of increase are the observed wind changes, and also freshening of surface layers (due to ice sheet melting) that increases stratification so the sea surface is relatively insulated from warmer deep waters. Although both factors are real, they are perhaps not enough to explain the observed increase. Lorenzo Polvani finished off the session with a rapid-fire and (to me) impressive analysis suggesting that the small Antarctic sea ice increase we have seen during the satellite era could easily be nothing more than natural variation. Modeling shows that this is quite possible, indeed upward runs like this occur often in simulations with no external forcing. And observational support for his argument includes the fact that in decades prior to 1979 Antarctic sea ice was apparently much more extensive, so the recent increase follows an even larger decline -- no sustained trend as there has been in the Arctic.
Fascinating stuff, if you like watching science in action.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 11, 2013 - 10:35am PT
|
The only argument the denier crowd can muster:
... progressive wacko websites.
Forget about arguing the science, especially when all climate scientists are part of the large Boogieman conspiracy whose hidden agenda is to take all your money and rule your life.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:40am PT
|
My recent characterizations of the primary climate change drivers is nearly as simplistic as the endless blaming of the mythical molecule as the primary driver of the current ( rather feeble and historically insignificant compared to climate changes of even the recent past)climate change coming from the guys you identify with Ed. Though i did identify the primary drivers, and the sun's recent and current activity as driver #1, their are hundreds of mechanisms, causes and effects that enhance,amplify, or inhibit change from the primary drivers. You are well aware of the limitations of modeling, particularly the missed and misrepresented components entered in the models as well as the chaoctic nature of the combined components that defy prediction, in representing anything resembling reality in the natural world. It is beyond me why you, Ed, cannot rise above the limitations of your current ideology and practice the " real science" that propelled your ambition in youth. CAGW theory is not accurate and has been refuted by the happenings of the real world. You don't have to go down with this rat infested ship, show us some real dispassionate science.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:42am PT
|
I get all of my climate science from Rush Limbaugh. He rules.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 11:09am PT
|
Well Base, your statement doesn't apply to myself or anyone else on this thread, but if it applied to you you would be on your jackhammer finding us all more oil and gas. Keep the wheels turning Base despite what MSNBC tells you.
Now, did i hear a hee-haw from an ever present jackass.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 11:28am PT
|
As far as my intuition "working"; did i not accurately summarize your game and its sources early on, eh Bruce?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2013 - 12:42pm PT
|
Well let's go to the heart of the argument for CAGW Ed. Take the calculated energy budget of Earth's climate system you have posted several times. This shows a positive imbalance of .6 wm2, if i remember correctly. What is estimated margin of error Ed?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!