Simple Question About AGW

[Slimething]

A reasonable person might, but the models tell us a different story. They have predicted most warming at the poles, except for the polar vortex area of the Antarctic. The models were right.

I followed your link and found text telling me that ice in the poles was melting but nothing about predictions that the poles should get warmer than the tropics. As computer models are merely the restatement of a hypothesis in computer language, it really doesn't mean much if they predicted it or not, frankly.

Can you tell me why, if CO2 interacting with IR photons is the operateive process of AGW, the tropics aren't heating? I can see mega-convection if you want to postulate that but that would still require the tropcis to be hotter than the poles.

 

[David Rodale]

The only model I care about is the big bad analogue model, and that's the context I apply my scientific understanding to. Thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, radiative physics, stuff like that. Nothing extreme or mystical.

Well, then Schwartz and Chylek should be all you need then

 

[CapelDodger]

Alric, CO2 concentrations account for the 1920-1940's temperature rise and the subsequent cooling until the late 70's? That's pretty slick....how did it do that?

Given that the abstract you so helpfully quoted includes

"The data available for the period since 1990 raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly to climate change than our current generation of models indicates."

it's clear that ...

Well, I can't see an easy way to say this. It's clear that you're posting through your fundament. There, I've said it. The paper is calling climate models into question. I suggest you embrace it, not demand that it do something it explicitly didn't set out to do in the first place.

 

[Slimething]

Anthropology is a science.

Nope. Sorry. Just like medicine isn't a science.

Misrepresentation is easy to understand. Do you really think anybody's going to believe I've ever done that?

Too tired to go back and chase the quote up. It was in response to my question as to whether or not you could cite any examples of physics that were not predicted by what was known up to that point. You couldn't. I gave the SToR as an example and you said it was a miniscule artifact. The SToR is one of the most beautiful statements of theoretical physics ever penned by a human. Don't hold it against Einstein if you don't understand it.

You're clearly the go-to guy regarding relativity's relevance to climate science.

Let us know when you're running out of straw, OK?

The only model I care about is the big bad analogue model, and that's the context I apply my scientific understanding to. Thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, radiative physics, stuff like that. Nothing extreme or mystical. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but postulate Dark Climate to go with Dark Energy and Dark Matter, and for no discernable reason.

Why don't you quote me saying any of that, fella? You really are too funny. Anthropology a science. Isolated mechanisms with no competition, physics without prediction/falsification... What else do you consider science?

Do you expect these "other physical processes" to lie outside the realm of thermodynamics, fluids, yadda yadda? If you do you're rowing alone.

Nope. You would have me believe that but I don't. I don't believe in a simple world that conforms to what little physics you know either.

There may well be some behaviour specific to the equatorial region of a rotating globe with a thin surface skim of fluid. If there is, it'll be explicable by the usual science. And you can be sure there are qualified people looking at the problem right now.

Well, that helps a lot...not. CO2 trapping photons and heating up Earth's surface. CO2 exists at the tropics. Highest photon flux at the tropics. No noticeable warming. Explain. Don't give me jibber-jabber when you have mocked my statements that not all is known or understood. You've admitted as much in the above statement anyway. Thanks for playing.

Just to put this in context, the tropical troposphere thing is a restricted re-hash of a global troposphere thing from a decade ago. That turned out to be a measurement problem; the tropical anomaly is all that's left to explain. It might tell us something very interesting, but it's restriction to that slice of the world severely limits its relevance.

It's worth noting at this point that the predicted inverse relationship between surface temperature and the surface-to-troposphere temperature gradient is independent of the forcing involved. It's a GW effect, not a distinctive AGW one. Which makes it something of a distraction from the more relevant issue of warming down here where we all live. That's not to say the physics involved isn't interesting in itself, of course.

Wow! Hand-waving at its finest. Frankly that pile is still steaming!

 

[CapelDodger]

I followed your link and found text telling me that ice in the poles was melting but nothing about predictions that the poles should get warmer than the tropics.

There's a pretty fundamental distinction between absolute values and rates of change. The prediction is that the rate of climate change at the poles will be greater than at the tropics. No rational mind would expect the sun-kissed lands of the equator to ever get warmer than the poles, with their long winters and grudging summers. The Sun is where it all starts from, after all.

As computer models are merely the restatement of a hypothesis in computer language, it really doesn't mean much if they predicted it or not, frankly.

Do let us know how that attitude works out for you.

Physical climate models are based on a vast array of hypotheses, many of which came of age in the 19thCE.

Can you tell me why, if CO2 interacting with IR photons is the operateive process of AGW, the tropics aren't heating? I can see mega-convection if you want to postulate that but that would still require the tropcis to be hotter than the poles.

You seem to have missed the points that that the tropics are warming at the surface, the tropical troposphere is warming but apparently not much faster than the surface, and as to the mega-confection (sic) I'm lost for words.

 

[mhaze]

The sensitivity issue. When forced to concede the principle Michaels starts trying to minimise its relevance. I'm seeing a pattern.

When Michaels lied to Congress back in '98 he did it to exaggerate the climate sensitivity predicted by models. Was he already doing the groundwork for his latest erection? "We report, you decide" .

Well, now I don't think that is right. Hansen stated the sensitivity. The scenarios A, B ,and C were not based on different climate sensitivities.

 

[mhaze]

You seem to have missed the points that that the tropics are warming at the surface, the tropical troposphere is warming but apparently not much faster than the surface, and as to the mega-confection (sic) I'm lost for words.

You've got the riddle right there. The near surface warming would be water vapor's 97% or 86%, or whatever it was at that point and place in time. Using up all or most of that precious IR down by the ground.

No or minimal CO2 greenhouse effect.

 

[Slimething]

There's a pretty fundamental distinction between absolute values and rates of change. The prediction is that the rate of climate change at the poles will be greater than at the tropics. No rational mind would expect the sun-kissed lands of the equator to ever get warmer than the poles, with their long winters and grudging summers. The Sun is where it all starts from, after all.

You are a very confused human being. First, the mechanisms are not known but now they're known. Except, not exactly. If I squeeze your nose, will it beep?

Yes, from your very own physics, a rational mind would absolutely expect the rate of warming at the tropics to exceed any other place on this planet. Beer's Law. The greater the light intensity, the greater the absorbance. Who's touting Dark, Mystical Physics now?

Do let us know how that attitude works out for you.

It works just fine. Thanks for asking. As I've written, I am very familiar with a great many environmental models. The scientists come up with a hypothesis and the programmer codes it. Not the other way around, sorry.

So you really think anthropology is a science? That's really rich. I put that question to google and the only thing I found was one anthropologist claiming it was. Let us know how that works out for you, OK?

Physical climate models are based on a vast array of hypotheses, many of which came of age in the 19thCE.

Why don't you take one apart for us? My money is on that you don't know what goes into any given climate model. Go ahead. Please, put your claims on paper. Name any environmental model and give us all the contributive physics. (You haven't got a clue.)

You seem to have missed the points that that the tropics are warming at the surface, the tropical troposphere is warming but apparently not much faster than the surface, and as to the mega-confection (sic) I'm lost for words.

Why am I not surprised that you're trying to evade the question I asked? You really know your BS very well but that just won't cut it. Now, are you going to deal with the fact that the physics you've posted are contradicted by the fact that the tropics are not heating up faster than any other place despite the highest intensity sunlight and CO2 concentrations as high as anywhere else? No? You're just going to give us the mean old analog model BS you like so much? Really, fella, all you've got going for you is scare. Without the fear, you've got nothing going for you.

 

[mhaze]

Really, fella, all you've got going for you is scare. Without the fear, you've got nothing going for you.

Mongering though has use, if not of fear then fish?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Another nice quote from Svalgaard
18,19 (pete,Andrew): In my book climate is a 30-year thing. So making statements as many people have based on a few months worth of data (cold 2008), or a decade’s worth of data does not make much sense. My comment #721 still summarizes my opinion about TSI: no trend has been demonstrated. Lockwood: he has been wrong before [’doubling of Sun;s magnetic field’] and may be again when it comes to detailed explanations based on preferred data. Time will tell.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I followed your link and found text telling me that ice in the poles was melting but nothing about predictions that the poles should get warmer than the tropics.

Did you really mean to say that?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Nope. Sorry. Just like medicine isn't a science.

Science is the study of nature. Anthropology is the study of humanity. Unless you want to claim that humanity is not part of nature, you are simply wrong.

 

[TrueSceptic]

This is you claiming he does, and we know how reliable you are.

If you won't do it, I will.

And here is his reply.

22 (TrueSceptic):

Can I ask you whether you consider the following to summarise correctly your views?

But what he is going to say about the sun (he repeats this over and over) is that either it isn’t the big driver, or else climate sensitivity to solar is very high.

so far, so good, the following:

Which to me seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).

is your own opinion.

(Of course it was mhaze's opinion, not mine!)

 

[mhaze]

And here is his reply.
Which to me seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).
is your own opinion. (Of course it was mhaze's opinion, not mine!)

You really do have a way of searching needlessly hard for the truly obvious.

But some people pick up on non-subtle things right in front of them quicker than others, I guess.

See bolded section above.

 

[TrueSceptic]

You really do have a way of searching needlessly hard for the truly obvious.

But some people pick up on non-subtle things right in front of them quicker than others, I guess.

See bolded section above.

This is frankly dishonest. You initially said that as if you were paraphrasing Svalgaard.

 

[mhaze]

Not at all. Why on earth would I give him credit for my opinions?

But for the grammer tense challeneged, here is the paragraph again with "Claifications for Trueseptic"

But what he (Svalgaard) is going to say about the sun he (Svalgaard) repeats this over and over) is that either it isn't the big driver, or else climate senstivity to solar is very high. Which to me (Mhaze) seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).

Got it? No? Doesn't bother me. Yes? Great.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Not at all. Why on earth would I give him credit for my opinions?

But for the grammer tense challeneged, here is the paragraph again with "Claifications for Trueseptic"

But what he (Svalgaard) is going to say about the sun he (Svalgaard) repeats this over and over) is that either it isn't the big driver, or else climate senstivity to solar is very high. Which to me (Mhaze) seems really obvious, for example, at the minimum solar has got to be 2x any greenhouse effect (including water vapor).

Got it? No? Doesn't bother me. Yes? Great.

No, you said that as if his posts support that claim, following on from misreading posts mentioning the last 100 years. Got that?

And my "grammer tense" (sic) is pretty good. Perhaps you meant semantics?

 

[mhaze]

No, you said that as if his posts support that claim, following on from misreading posts mentioning the last 100 years. Got that?

And my "grammer tense" (sic) is pretty good. Perhaps you meant semantics?

I have NO idea now what you are talking about. Somebody else's post? Somehow related to mine? Somehow? Something about 100 years? Did I quote someone else's post? No? But it is somehow related? To you? Hmm... Perhaps you should connect the dots for us there?

Oh, or you could just forget it, chalk it up to some sort of misunderstanding on your part. I suspect you don't like that idea, thought. Well, whatever.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I have NO idea now what you are talking about. Somebody else's post? Somehow related to mine? Somehow? Something about 100 years? Did I quote someone else's post? No? But it is somehow related? To you? Hmm... Perhaps you should connect the dots for us there?

Oh, or you could just forget it, chalk it up to some sort of misunderstanding on your part. I suspect you don't like that idea, thought. Well, whatever.

You followed on from Alric and DR disagreeing on what Svalgaard meant when he (Svalgaard) mentioned the last 100 years.

In any case, Svalgaard did not support your opinion about solar being 2x CO2 (or whatever) did he? That was the whole point of my asking him (the first part was obviously true but I didn't want to quote you out of context).

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Dr. Roy Spencer is a "climate scientist". He has recently written an essay asking valid questions concerning IPCC conclusions. What do you think?
Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This Or is he somehow not qualified to comment either?

And the sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than any of the models predicted. So your point is?

Roy Spencer is not a global warming denier (though he is an evolution denier). He just thinks that the warming will not be sufficient to cause major disruptions to human or other lifestyles.