• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reality Check said:
The Senate report says the EPA predicts $78 billion in annual costs. Over 100 years that is $7.8 trillion.
The blog compares that to the world's annual gross production which is really dumb.

The US 2010 GDP was 14,624,184 million, i.e. 14,624 billion. So the EPA are predicting a cost of 0.6% of the US GDP.

Really easy to sell that fix. :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

There you go again with that reality stuff.

The ideologues who are pushing that story were hoping you wouldn't do that.
 
Ambrosia said:
The science is done, the overwhelming weight of evidence says yes we are screwing the planet via CO2, every month that ticks past gives the scientists even more weight to the arguments, and still people are in the arguing about stuff phase and not the doing things phase :(
Click to expand...

I think that when stuff happens that has to be responded to the denialists of today will simply not speak of climate change again but will take it as given. Bringing up their previous denial will be "raking over the past" and playing the blame-game by tax-raising libruls, when the specific problem can be addressed much more cheaply by the private sector without destroying jobs. Something along those lines.

And people will fall for it. People are, in general, not very bright.

I am starting to think that even after we get to a summer Ice free Arctic there will still be people spouting Monkton claptrap, and holding up the doing phase...
Click to expand...

Depend on it. There are still people banging on about Global Warming On Mars based on two photographs of one pole a number of years ago. Monckton is, of course, one of them.
 
No wonder the Venture Capitalists like John Doerr think the Green Energy boom will make all others pale by comparison.

"Greentech could be the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century," Doerr said in a February press release announcing that Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the investment fund that helped underwrite many prominent tech start-ups,
Click to expand...

http://www.earthlab.com/articles/greentechnologyboom.aspx

Lot of jobs in those numbers. :garfield:
 
macdoc said:
No wonder the Venture Capitalists like John Doerr think the Green Energy boom will make all others pale by comparison.



http://www.earthlab.com/articles/greentechnologyboom.aspx

Lot of jobs in those numbers. :garfield:
Click to expand...

Well, if conservatives were a little more progressive in their investment strategies they would see that quibbling over pennies that benefit those who make use of public services (mainly small and mid-size businesses and workers) is counter-productive to true consumerism and they'd be making more net market dollars on the true tide that raises all boats like the sea-level in an AGW dominated global environment, but nobody ever accused a conservative of being fiscally reasonable or responsible, that's why most economists reject conservative fiscal policy, while embracing the need for a conservative check on progressive excesses.
 
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html

Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands
The deadly Russian heat wave of 2010 was due to a natural atmospheric phenomenon often associated with weather extremes, according to a new NOAA study. And while the scientists could not attribute the intensity of this particular heat wave to climate change, they found that extreme heat waves are likely to become increasingly frequent in the region in coming decades.

The research team drew from scientific observations and computer climate models to evaluate the possible roles of natural and human-caused climate influences on the severity of the heat wave. The study was accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

“Knowledge of prior regional climate trends and current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations would not have helped us anticipate the 2010 summer heat wave in Russia,” said lead author Randall Dole, deputy director of research at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Science Division and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). “Nor did ocean temperatures or sea ice status in early summer of 2010 suggest what was to come in Russia.”
... (rest at link at top of post)
Click to expand...

"Alarmists!!"
"It's hot/cold it's AGW!"
"Bah, humbug."
 
Excellent new intermediate level climate science source.....

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/

The IR animation of emissions to space for a year is worth the visit alone.

All three initial articles are worth the read.

The newest arrival in the climate science blogosphere is Isaac Held. This is notable in a number of respects. First, Isaac is a top-tier climate scientist who is hugely respected in the community. For him to decide that it is worth his time to blog on the science should be an important signal for other scientists. Secondly, Isaac is a federal NOAA employee at GFDL in Princeton, and the blog is on the official GFDL website.
Click to expand...

more
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/03/blogging-climate-scientists/#more-7092
 
TShaitanaku said:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110309_russianheatwave.html

Natural Variability Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave That Killed Thousands
Click to expand...

Hmm not sure about that. they said a rare weather phenomenon was the cause, but other occurrences of this same phenomenon were nowhere near as extreme until recently.

Science daily reporting on this papers
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/16/science.1201224

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110318091141.htm


in particular this graphic from the science daily article is pretty telling.

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/03/110318091141-large.jpg
 
TShaitanaku said:
With the recent discussion of sensitivity issues looking at them in a little more detail is probably a good idea.
snip..
cited paper said:
In contrast, we can observe the strength of atmospheric feedbacks, or the change in top-of-atmosphere energy flux in response to a surface temperature change, much more directly than climate sensitivity itself. The net strength of these feedbacks is directly related to the inverse of the climate sensitivity, or the range of stabilisation concentrations consistent with a target temperature rise.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I hope the members who were having trouble identifying the correlation between TOA flux and sensitivity took the time to read this. It might also be helpful in determining why estimates of flux in models are important, and why a value 400% below the actual is "significant".

Thanks for posting this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3bodyproblem said:
I hope the members who were having trouble identifying the correlation between TOA flux and sensitivity took the time to read this. It might also be helpful in determining why estimates of flux in models are important, and why a value 400% below the actual is "significant".

Thanks for posting this.
Click to expand...

He is discussing top of atmosphere energy flux, as you have been informed repeatedly this is different then top of atmosphere entropy flux.
 
lomiller said:
Hmm not sure about that. they said a rare weather phenomenon was the cause, but other occurrences of this same phenomenon were nowhere near as extreme until recently.

Science daily reporting on this papers
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/16/science.1201224

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110318091141.htm


in particular this graphic from the science daily article is pretty telling.

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2011/03/110318091141-large.jpg
Click to expand...

The article and paper are more clear than the graph, which makes it look like summer temps in europe hover around zero degrees C.

Let's see,...http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/16/science.1201224
"...According to regional multi-model experiments, the probability of a summer experiencing "mega-heatwaves" will increase by a factor of 5 to 10 within the next 40 years. However, the magnitude of the 2010 event was so extreme that despite this increase, the occurrence of an analogue over the same region remains fairly unlikely until the second half of the 21st century..." Seems to support the NOAA conclusion, that the primary causes of the 2010 event were more a convergence of unlikely factors than the direct result of AGW factors.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110318091141.htm
Well,...the explanatory quip below the graph does clarify that they are talking about temperature anomalies rather than temperature, that helps! "The 2010 heatwave (see at the right side of this picture) shattered all the records in terms of the deviation from the average temperatures."
Other than this minor "quippling" all seems to be fairly in touch with what I covered from NOAA. Now if the temp trends continue, which the physics indicates is the most likely progression into the near future (next few centuries), then we may be able to lay more of these types of events (or rather the trending of such events - when the rare become common) at the feet of AGW, but for now, it is simply an unusual confluence of factors. In a warming climate, warmer extremes would seem a natural expectation, but there are problems with carrying this too far and creating a perception that every weather extreme is an AGW dominated occurence, and the main problem is that it simply isn't accurate science. AGW increasingly does impact and influence much of our expressed weather but it is more like the salt seasoning the stew (at this point) rather than the meat and potatoes.
 
3bodyproblem said:
I hope the members who were having trouble identifying the correlation between TOA flux and sensitivity took the time to read this. It might also be helpful in determining why estimates of flux in models are important, and why a value 400% below the actual is "significant".

Thanks for posting this.
Click to expand...

You are welcome, it looked like you needed a bit brushing up on some of the terms and basic understandings, I see you've still got some conflation and significance of values issues, I'm glad this helped, and if I get the time I'll try to find something that will help you with these other items that seem to still be giving you problems.
 
A new one-dimensional radiative equilibrium model for investigating atmospheric radiation entropy flux
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1545/1367.abstract

A new one-dimensional radiative equilibrium model is built to analytically evaluate the vertical profile of the Earth's atmospheric radiation entropy flux under the assumption that atmospheric longwave radiation emission behaves as a greybody and shortwave radiation as a diluted blackbody. Results show that both the atmospheric shortwave and net longwave radiation entropy fluxes increase with altitude, and the latter is about one order in magnitude greater than the former. The vertical profile of the atmospheric net radiation entropy flux follows approximately that of the atmospheric net longwave radiation entropy flux. Sensitivity study further reveals that a ‘darker’ atmosphere with a larger overall atmospheric longwave optical depth exhibits a smaller net radiation entropy flux at all altitudes, suggesting an intrinsic connection between the atmospheric net radiation entropy flux and the overall atmospheric longwave optical depth. These results indicate that the overall strength of the atmospheric irreversible processes at all altitudes as determined by the corresponding atmospheric net entropy flux is closely related to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
 
An oldy but goody!

Entropy and climate. I: ERBE observations of the entropy production of the earth
http://radarmet.atmos.colostate.edu/AT620/papers/Stephens_and_Obrien.pdf

...The earth’s climate system is characterized by great irreversibility. An intrinsic
thermodynamic property of such a system and a measure of this irreversibility is the
entropy production associated with those processes occurring within it. This paper
introduces an approximate method for estimating this production by calculating the
global distributions of the entropy fluxes flowing through the upper boundary of the
climate system. These are the fluxes associated with the exchange of radiation between
the earth and space, and a specific method is described in this paper to derive these
entropy fluxes from already available measurements of the ERB...
Click to expand...
 
Early days yet, but it seems the BEST analysis has been sent out in first draft for review.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/20/berkeley-temperature-study-results-global-warming/#comments

I [Ken Caldeira] have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.
Click to expand...

Nothing to see here, move along ...

I doubt we'll hear much more about BEST in the weirdosphere. I don't monitor that reality closely, but the response to the initial announcement of the study did seem to be muted - I suspect that, deep down, they expected this.

Anyway, it's much easier to slander climate scientists and rage against massive conspiracies than it is to manipulate data when said data and the methodology used are transparent.
 
These results indicate that the overall strength of the atmospheric irreversible processes at all altitudes as determined by the corresponding atmospheric net entropy flux is closely related to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1367.abstract

posted that a while back but bears repeating....the structure proposed I believe allows easier incorporation into complex models allowing a vertical component to be introduced in a straightforward manner.
 
TShaitanaku said:
You are welcome, it looked like you needed a bit brushing up on some of the terms and basic understandings, I see you've still got some conflation and significance of values issues, I'm glad this helped, and if I get the time I'll try to find something that will help you with these other items that seem to still be giving you problems.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's not always easy to teach people. Sometimes I assume people posting in the science forum have a background in science, this is obviously not the case.
Just being able to read isn't enough when it comes to climate science. I need to learn as much as I can if I'm ever going to pass this information on to others. You need a University education and a year of teachers college just to teach grade 2!
I'm lucky in the sense that I can look at a value that is out by 400% an know, because of my extensive education, it is inherently significant. For others that may only have a passing fancy at math it's back to square one. Start with the basics, give examples, then get into things like standard deviation and p-tests.
The same thing goes with flux. I assumed, incorrectly, that people understood how a change in flux meant a change in sensitivity. For me it was very simple to see the correlation. For others it was a mystery, without evidence in writing they were unaware of the very basic measures that allow us to calculate sensitivity.
Anytime you can find information on these basic principles that helps me convey these complex equations and computer models please do. Thanks.
 
CapelDodger said:
Early days yet, but it seems the BEST analysis has been sent out in first draft for review.

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/20/berkeley-temperature-study-results-global-warming/#comments



Nothing to see here, move along ...

I doubt we'll hear much more about BEST in the weirdosphere. I don't monitor that reality closely, but the response to the initial announcement of the study did seem to be muted - I suspect that, deep down, they expected this.

Anyway, it's much easier to slander climate scientists and rage against massive conspiracies than it is to manipulate data when said data and the methodology used are transparent.
Click to expand...

I don't believe BEST to be a denialist effort so much as a minimallizing delaying effort. I expect more along the lines of "Yes, there's warming, but its not much and its not a big problem. Nothing which requires game-changing regulations or practices, just a little planetary climate fluctuation."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom