Admiral_Bobski
-
Posts
1,787 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Admiral_Bobski
-
-
Article on rock depletion here
CB
-
Once again we discover that something is "wrong" and assume it must be our fault.
Lucky we can determine a statistically significant trend over 25 years, isn't it?
...er....
-
I hope you exclude me from 'those people' ?
You are, in fact, the first person that came to mind that prompted me to add the "notable exceptions" parenthesis! I think you have shown that, especially over the past year, you have listened and altered your view when required.
Closed-mindedness drives me absolutely mad.
CB
-
I find it so but , if you recall, the circumstances that were found responsible for 07's melt did not involve Atlantic blocking but an Arctic H.P. which kept skies clear and the winds circulating the central pack.
So?
What difference does it make if the exceptional circumstances are different? They're still exceptional.
You just can't accept it unless it's all our fault, can you GW?
CB
-
As I have understood things (yes C-Bob I know!) we should be exiting the interglacial optimum and on the slow wind down to the next ice age (Arctic records had shown 1,000yrs of cooling prior to our recent warming) so our current warming is quite extraordinary in that it opposes this.
circular, so the lurkers can be exposed to both viewpoint and the evidence which supports them.
The thing is, GW, you don't "know" at all. I have shown you exactly where, how and why the way you have "understood things" is wrong and yet you persist in this false understanding.
This is why I don't post in here all that often any more - nobody listens (with a few notable exceptions, of course).
An argument cannot progress if people aren't willing to listen and alter their views accordingly.
CB
-
A warm summer this year with favourable currents/winds and we will reach this 1 million km mark. If not we will still challenge the 07' 'record' even without 'exceptional circumstances' up there.
Was the extent of blocking over the Winter not "exceptional" then?
CB
-
We use the relationship between temp /CO2 that stretches back through geological time. We may not have the level of detail that we'd like right now but we can see that when CO2 is 'high' we have a warmer world and when CO2 is depleted we have a colder world. We have increased our GHG's at a superfast rate but I'm sure that ,over time, temps will adjust to the new atmospheric levels of GHG's (as they have always done in the past).
There's that same old argument again! The argument which I have pointed out to be flawed time and time again. There are huge leaps of logic in your assertion which are not substantiated by any research of which I am aware.
Please stop using this argument - it's bobbins!
CB
-
Trouble is, we also have the issues of dwindling fossil fuel supplies and pollution- AGW or no, our current use of resources isn't sustainable. So mitigation would help to address those issues as well as any AGW, while focusing exclusively on adaptation will leave us in a spot of bother once fossil fuels become scarce- World War III would be a real possibility.
I think in general it's a bad idea to "put all of our eggs in either basket", i.e. a combination of mitigation and adaptation is the best way forward.
Don't get me wrong - I agree with you absolutely (and I've said much the same thing on here before
).But reduction of consumption of fossil fuels could be done under the banner of "future sustainability" rather than supposed mitigation of environmental impacts. The future sustainability issue is an important one, but it is something we could transition to at a more comfortable, and safer, rate than this mad rush to cut CO2 to "mitigate global warming".
It's not the process I object to: it is the headlong rush that I think unwise.
CB
-
Of course, if the LI turns out to be correct and man's input is small (perhaps even insignificant) then it begs the question, "is there any point in reducing CO2?"
I'm not advocating a Business As Usual approach, I hasten to add - I'm simply saying that if all of our mitigation will have next to no effect on temperatures then would our funding not be better spent on adaptation rather than mitigation?
I have said before, one of the main reasons the human race is still here today is because we are masters of adaptation - more so than any other creature on the planet, because we are capable of altering our (local) environment. Is it not best to play to our strengths?
CB
-
Without wishing to be the pedant what of failing sinks and Arctic methane increases?
We may well have a handle on our outputs but the knock-on effects of our increases also put more CO2/GHG's into the mix.
As such we may find our 'CO2 line' needs to be far steeper than it is at present?
Once the Arctic permafrost starts to properly release it's GHG's then they will easily dwarf our outputs over a year (even if we only utilise 5% or so of them).
Well, we'll have to wait for those data to come in - if they come in.
How long do you reckon it will take for the arctic permafrost to "properly release its GHGs"?
CB
-
Well, to be fair and equitable, I've got the CO2 data from the Mauna Loa website, via NOAA, and here's the chart set out as described before (strangely only 1958 to present is available)
This is monthly, so we have an underlying increase rate of 0.121ppm/month, which annually adds up to 1.45ppm/year (using arithmetic asymmetric rounding)
That's only 75% of the value you quoted CB, which means it's less than 0.5%/yr - more like something in the region of 0.37%/yr
I was giving a rough approximation by eye
I've learned an important lesson - never use eye-approximations when in a discussion with someone who knows the Arcane Arts of Statistics!
CB
-
Had a look VP and I stand by what I've said, I've looked at the graphs you posted of linear trends but am not really sure what your getting at ?.
CB, I 've done some rought calculations on the CO2 % increase if we take your figure then we are increasing at over 1% a year currently, leading to a doubling over 100 years, in line with Arrhenius of a doubling = 2C (not quite right nowadays) leading to 0.2C a decade, very rough and I will try to put a bit more flesh on it.
Not true, Iceberg.
There is roughly 750,000 million tonnes of carbon in the air at any given time (give or take, obviously, as this is an annual global average). 9,000 million tonnes may well be over 1% of this figure, but this doesn't take into account the carbon cycle.
The Mauna Loa CO2 data show an increase of about 20ppm per decade, or 2ppm per year. If we're currently at aroun 385ppm then the actual increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere (which will be roughly proportional to the increase in Carbon) is actually around 0.5% per year.
CB
-
...we are not even favourably positioned being that we are drawing away from our last planetary 'optimum' for energy input (on the slope down towards the next 'minimum'), so by rights should be cooling and seeing the carbon cycle draw out CO2 from the system....
Actually, we are on an upswing of both the precession index (esin(ϖ)) and the upper-atmosphere insolation factor (Qday), as can be seen in this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png
Furthermore, the eccentricity of our orbit is on its way to one of its lowest ebbs and the axial tilt (which is approaching its minimum) is largely irrelevant in terms of total insolation.
We've had this discussion before, I've shown this assertion to be wrong before, and yet you keep on trying to hammer the (inaccurate) point home.
CB
-
Sorry Jethro, I was talking about the effect or ability of man to put CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate it's doing and increasing at the rate it's doing is incredible, it was in noway talking about the perceived effect of GHG on warming (It was my fault in the way I typed it).
You might be right CB, but we are not talking about the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle, but the amount of carbon in the atmosphere where the GHG layer is. Records of ppm are generally accepted.
Cheers
I beg your pardon, Iceberg - I meant to say that there is something like 750,000 million tonnes in the atmosphere, not just the carbon cycle.
CB
-
No.
The extra amount released in recent years is incredible, the effects or rather magnitude of effect, is an unknown quantity.
Furthemore, the extra amount still pales in comparison to the amount of carbon actively involved in the carbon cycle (which I believe is somewhere in the region of 750,000 million tonnes).
CB
-
Re the first part, I have participated in LI discussions over the past 6-9 months, a correlation might have been found (tbh it existed before and many people have noticed a correlation between solar and temperature), although the LI does take this on a different angle.
However I have made my POV abundently clear, I don't want to appear negative about something that yourself and VP feel very strongly about, it will IMO lead to less arguments if we wait for a copy of the paper that takes it from being a possible interesting correlation to something with a bit more weight to it with mechanisms and explanations of the factors included.
I am quite clear that I have neither the time nor the desire to discuss it really prior to this, there are IMO some major problems with it, (using SSN instead of SI which is the a better indication of the actual amount of energy the earth is receiving, a good example of this is the current solar minimum where although SSN is really low, SI is actually higher than it was in previous SSN minima). It would be interesting to see exactly the same formula with the SI rather than SSN data fed into it.
I honestly do find it a shame that you have no desire to engage in a discussion with regards a work-in-progress - discussion is the cornerstone of science! With regards SSN/SI, you say that SI is a better indication of the actual amount of energy the earth is receiving - but is it? Quite possibly, I grant you, but maybe not. As VP and I have said recently, the fact that the LI doesn't explicitly state a mechanism is really neither here nor there - it doesn't mean the LI is not "good science" just because a mechanism hasn't been proposed. The fact that SSN tallies with global temps is extremely interesting, and warrants (or may warrant) further investigation.
I am not sure I or any climate scientist has said that AGW due to GHG's started in the industrial revolution, I've certaintly not seen that mentioned in papers I've read over the last 15 years.Would there have been some contribute to global temps in 1950 due to GHG, maybe but it would have been very very small at maybe 0.02 a decade.
I wasn't intimating that you, necessarily, claim that AGW began at the industrial revolution, but I have been rather scornfully rebuked in the past with comments such as "so you think it's just coincidence that global temps started to rise after the industrial revolution?" Is the insinuation not clear enough? Clearly not all AGW proponents are agreed on when, exactly, the human-induced phenomenon began...
CB
-
I though I had!
Thanks CB, it's Google Chrome I blame!! Ah - Google Chrome.
nuff said!
CB
-
You might want to put that up as a link rather than a file, SC!
http://wattsupwithth...a-being-global/
(I'm not having a go at you or anything - you should have seen the state of my maths this morning!)
CB
Better yet, full paper here:
-
Looks OK to me, CB. I was referring to form, not to substance, such that we can say that an equation is linear if it falls into a specific form. Typing out loud as it were ... (but don't forget a missing constant might still be there; it might refer to 1 or 0, perhaps)
Thanks VP
Of course I've just noticed that in my edited substitution of Hooke's law at the end I have left out the constant - such are the perils of doing maths before noon! I think I need more coffee and cigarettes!
CB
-
It certainly isn't hysteresis - since, rather like the valuation of inventory, you need the entire history (or a large proportion of it) to be at hand.
However, Hooke's law looks to me to be mathematically similar to the LI
Hooke's Law:
F=-kx
Leaky Integrator:
dx/dt=-Ax+C
Interesting ... (if you look at the papers I sent you CB there was a selection on dampening and it's effects)
Hi VP
It did take me a while to respond to GW's post because I wanted to double-check my understanding of Hooke's Law and I found that there is a superficial similarity - at first I thought there might be something in it, but despite the similar construction it is what those terms relate to which renders them different (and the "+C" term, of course!).
Whereas the "k" term in Hooke's law is a constant, the "A" term in the LI is not (since "A", the "rate of leak", is dependent upon the other variables). If we look at the general solution to the LI we get:
x(t) = ke-At+C/A,
in which "k" is also a constant. By comparing the two constant-containing expressions we now have two very different equations.
Having said that, my knowledge of maths is genuinely not as sharp as yours, so perhaps it is me who is misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) things. Could you clarify my assessment above please? (I'm starting to doubt myself!)
Cheers,
CB
EDIT - of course, having said that perhaps what I have just written is nothing more than mathematical semantics:
If the "F" in Hooke's law is equal to "x(t)", and the "x" in Hooke's law is equal to "e-At" then we're still left with just one outstanding variable, "C/A" (except of course the "kx" has now changed sign).
Or, to put it mathematically,
if F = x(t)
and x = e-At
and k is a constant
then,
F = kx + (C/A)
Hmmm...
EDIT! Bits in bold above I have just put in coz I left 'em out by mistake - oopsie!!
-
on my behalf I've said several times that I want to wait for your paper before comments.
Re SSN and temp, can we extend the graph another 20 years. ?
I don't think anybody disputes a solar/temp link up until say 1950's its moe the recent warming where the conventional relationship falls down and GHG increases play the part i.e the last 30 years.
Have you no interest in contributing to the LI? Or even in engaging in an interesting hypothetical discussion, on the basis that an interesting correlation has been found?
VP has, at least once before, produced a "predictive" graph (using an assumed solar cycle, obviously) that extends into the future.
And your final line is the bit I find the most disconcerting. When exactly did global warming start? Because we were always told it was at the Industrial Revolution, but over the years it has become a shorter and shorter timeframe - I've even heard tell, in the past, that solar effects can account for virtually all warming up to 1980...where does that leave us? With 30 years of "man-made global warming"? Is that statistically significant?
CB
-
Sorry to differ C-Bob but my 'Lovelokian' view of the climate system, and it's response to 'forcing' ,is pretty well served by the analogy.
It is only 'my' way of seeing things though!
That's all well and good, GW, but it's not hysteresis, and to describe hysteresis as such is something of a misrepresentation of the LI.
CB
-
Must be my OE and my interpretation C-Bob !!!
" the lagging behind of an effect when it's cause varies in amount etc.,esp. of magnetic induction behind the magnetising force...."
So I took it to mean the slow take up of change because mother N. had checks and balances in place to limit/offset cyclical forcings.
It's almost like Hooke's law (the way I see things) with 'extension of a spring' replaced with 'Hysterisis of the climate system' and 'elastic limit' being replaced by 'step change to a new point of balence'.....
The OED definition is a little simplistic (though similar to definition 1 that I gave above), but in all fairness the phenomenon of hysteresis has been discussed at great length on the relevant threads and so there should be no need to fall back on dictionary definitions anyway.
You are focusing a bit too much on "Mother Nature's checks and balances" - the fact is that hysteresis is a phenomenon which the world would exhibit, in some form, even if it were just a ball of rock with no atmosphere.
The comparison with Hooke's law is not really valid, since hooke's law says nothing of lags which are dependent upon the prior state of the system, so your analogy isn't really appropriate.
CB
-
We should do the same for CO2 and temp and see if we can see a relationship there over the same time period..........
Maybe even global population and temp over the same period...........
or Arctic ice mass and temp over the same period........
or pan evaporation rates and temp over the same period
You're missing a vital piece of the puzzle, GW.
There is clearly no relevant link between global population and temperature, so any correlation that there might be (and I suspect it would be only a vague correlation anyway) is irrelevant.
Your other suggestions are all the inverse of the SSN/temp example: we know that temperature can affect ice mass and evaporation rates, so any correlation can work in that direction.
Can temperature affect sunspot numbers? Now, maybe I've not read all the papers there are out there on the subject, but somehow I think not...
CB
).
Thanks CB, it's Google Chrome I blame!! 
General Climate Change
in Climate Change
Posted
Although not AGW related, here's another article from the same source as the last.
CB