Suricat,

quote:

Would you copy your 'City rain' post there?

Yes it's done although I consider it relevant in this thread as well because it's another threat to the integrity of both land temperature measurement as an indicator of AGW related to CO2, and perturbations to the hydrology circle that is missing from the models.

And if the models are wrong then they are not reliable predictors of climate change and if the measured data is influenced by items local to the weather stations then that data is also corrupted.

Additionally I've been spending a lot of time on Climate Audit recently and there is some interesting stuff appearing about Synchronized Chaos see the PDF preprint in posting #87 predicting climatic shifts.

Son of Mulder.

Thanx.

It's already in this thread anyway and whether it's AGW or not, the indicator is more important and the AGW connection can be decided later.

quote:

And if the models are wrong then they are not reliable predictors of climate change and if the measured data is influenced by items local to the weather stations then that data is also corrupted.

I concur.

quote:

Additionally I've been spending a lot of time on Climate Audit recently and there is some interesting stuff appearing about Synchronized Chaos see the PDF preprint in posting #87 predicting climatic shifts.

To paraphrase, interesting. It seems they've discovered a 'microscopic' effect of the 'macroscopic' 'pump hunt' between climate cells that I was trying to describe way back.

Best regards, suricat.

AGW is a prediction of the Global Climate models. I thought they also predicted that AGW would increase the number and intensity of hurricanes whereas I'd heard prof Lindzen suggested the opposite on The Great Global Warming Swindle. I now read this
on the BBC website which seems to be predicting fewer hurricanes.

Is this another empirical falsifaction of AGW and will it require the models to be modified?

Son of Mulder.

I consider 'this' subject to be one of 'hydrological hysteresis'. I think we've been through this before, but I'll repeat this for other readers.

Definition: 'Hysteresis' is 'the lag in a variable property of a system with the effect producing it' (Ref; Collins Concise Dictionary plus).

The 'magic' temperature of ~27c for ocean surface temperature is only one criterion for the evolution of a 'tropical storm' (hurricane, cyclone, or typhoon), another essential criterion is water vapour's (WV) admittance to the local atmosphere. The 'control' factor of this is the local 'atmospheric temperature' that affects the local 'relative humidity' (RH) and I'll explain why to the best of my ability to do so.

To begin with, WV is a light gas. At ambient pressure and temperature it only exists as a 'mixture' with other gasses, but if it existed as a 'stand alone' gas it would have a density that is much less than the 'ambient' atmosphere. Thus, it tries to ascend through the other gasses in the atmosphere (like a 'helium filled balloon' does). So WV is a gas that 'rises' within the atmosphere and gives an 'upward' vector to all the other atmospheric gasses by reason of its 'upward' pressure to the atmospheric 'mix', but this has no relationship to an upward 'thermal'. This effect is additional to a thermal!

The influence that WV has upon the local atmosphere is entirely dependant upon the 'proportion' of its 'mix' with the local atmosphere. A high proportion of WV will influence the local atmosphere to 'rise' due to the 'low pressure' induced by the high proportionate presence of WV (it will show a 'low pressure' on a weather map), but a local atmosphere with a low proportion of WV in its mix will not include the same 'vertically upwards vector' of WV and will result in a comparatively 'high pressure' barometric reading for the region.

To connect the atmospheric temperature, water vapour (WV) absorption and ocean temperature here I need to elucidate more on 'relative humidity'.

When air is cool, water has a low ability to 'include' (evaporate) WV into an air/WV mixture and the air becomes 'saturated' with WV at relatively low PPM (parts per million) levels of WV in an air volume. However, with 'warm' air, the PPM level of WV in an air volume is greater before the air becomes 'saturated' and this ability for water to mix WV with air increases proportionately at a 'log rate' with an increase in air temperature (assuming the water temperature is, at least, the same as that of the air). This is known as 'relative humidity' (RH) and is denoted as the 'percentage' of 'saturation' at a given 'temperature'. If you are still confused with this, see wiki (though I think that Wiki's explanation is even more confusing).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity

So now, perhaps, it can be understood why sea surface temperature (SST) is so important in a 'tropical' region (where the air temperature is 'usually' very warm) when it comes to the 'generation' of a 'tropical storm'.

The 'admittance' of WV to the atmosphere already exists as a 'high atmospheric inclusion' due to the 'high atmospheric temperature'. It's only the low SST that prevents water being evaporated into the atmosphere as WV and a SST of ~27 centigrade is, it seems, the 'tipping point' that triggers a massive evaporation of WV from the sea surface which results, eventually, in a 'tropical storm'.

Phew! That was long. I 'could' add more on angular momentum and coriolis effect, but I'll pass on this for now.


SoM. Boundary air temperature, SST, sea surface salinity and the 'duration of this manifestation' are both the 'precursors' and predicators of the 'eventuality' of a 'storm'. I don't care what the BBC says, the physics is 'well' understood (or should be). Any changes in these 'predicators' causes a change in the reaction time of the local weather system (hysteresis) and can't be predicted by a 'GCM'! All the more reason for a 'local model' to feed into a GCM!

Best regards, suricat.

PS. Sorry for the long explanation.

Suricat

quote:

The 'magic' temperature of ~27c for ocean surface temperature is only one criterion for the evolution of a 'tropical storm' (hurricane, cyclone, or typhoon), another essential criterion is water vapour's (WV) admittance to the local atmosphere.

I understand your explaination but another prediction if AGW theory is that there is more warming as you move away from the equatorial regions ie a decrease in the equator to pole temperature gradient. Will this not have the effect of shifting the Hadley cell boundary closer to the poles as well as putting more energy into the troposphere from the warmer equatorial regions as the latent heat of evaporation from the extra evporation appears as the WV condenses?

So poles warm faster than tropics - a prediction of AGW theory (N has warmed but S has cooled).

Tropical troposphere warms faster than surface - a prediction of AGW theory (but satellite observations show slower warming than at the surface) .

Hadley Cell is larger so the question is does that dilute the formation of hurricanes or does the extra local energy intensify them and so what is the resultant? ie does local build into model or model predict local?

Son of Mulder.

quote:

does local build into model or model predict local?

'Model builds into 'Global', but 'local' builds into 'Global model'. What else can I say! There is no 'prediction' without previous 'understanding' of 'outcome' from current conditions!

But I think you already know this!

I'll leave it at this.

Best regards, suricat.

Son of Mulder.

Sorry for the short response last night, but it was late and I was 'cream crackered'.

quote:

I understand your explaination but another prediction if AGW theory is that there is more warming as you move away from the equatorial regions ie a decrease in the equator to pole temperature gradient. Will this not have the effect of shifting the Hadley cell boundary closer to the poles as well as putting more energy into the troposphere from the warmer equatorial regions as the latent heat of evaporation from the extra evporation appears as the WV condenses?

Well there are three things here.

Firstly, the decrease in temperature gradient between the equator and the poles has, I far as I'm aware, nothing to do with the hydrosphere. If you are looking for mediators for this 'black carbon and soot' with the 'pollutants' (aerosols) they carry seem to be the most likely candidates for this effect. They would also better explain the 'disparity' seen in temperature forcings between the two polar regions.

Secondly, Climate Cells. The Hadley, Ferrel and Polar Climate Cells have their 'boundaries' set by 'Earth rotation' and not 'local weather'. However, the Hadley Climate Cell already discharges part of its 'turnover' into the 'Polar Vortex'. This transition goes by the name of 'The Brewer-Dobson Circulation'. Note that the Brewer-Dobson Circulation occupies an altitude that 'excludes' almost all manifestations of H₂O.

Lastly, any thermal energy that is finally discharged by the hydrosphere is discharged at an altitude where it is radiated directly into outer-space, so there can be 'no thermal addition to the troposphere'. The resultant 'precipitation' can only further 'cool' any 'lower altitude', or even the 'surface', with its low temperature. If I didn't actually 'say it', this is what I tried to imply with my 'long' post. The 'hydrosphere' is the 'thermostat' for both Earth's 'central heating' and 'air conditioning' systems.

quote:

So poles warm faster than tropics - a prediction of AGW theory (N has warmed but S has cooled).

Again, I think you need to look to black carbon, soot and aerosols for the 'forcings' of this change, but 'realise' that there is a 'North/South divide' here. It's origin is at the equator.

quote:

Tropical troposphere warms faster than surface - a prediction of AGW theory (but satellite observations show slower warming than at the surface) .

This depends on the tropospheric altitude that you are looking at! Do you really mean "slower warming", or 'less warming'? Perhaps the 'radiative model' is beginning to get to you!

quote:

Hadley Cell is larger so the question is does that dilute the formation of hurricanes or does the extra local energy intensify them and so what is the resultant?

We are discussing local and regional weather events here when 'tropical storms' are on the 'agenda' so I don't understand the reason for the introduction of the Hadley Cell! A 'tropical storm' is evolved by reason for a 'need' (basically the 'condition' is 'ripe') for sea surface temperatures to lower when the local atmosphere 'permits' this.

This concludes my final response to your last post here.

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

Sorry for the short response last night, but it was late and I was 'cream crackered'.

From the style, this did cross my mind.

2 times out of 3 I'm failing to get into site which is very frustrating and may explain the drop off in activity.

I find little inconsistency betweem your posting and mine other than I was trying to get across that models once running should predict measurably, testable results. So once initial data (conditions) are input and they run, so what they predict (and hindcast) should align with what is observed both globally and climatically locally. The more I read about this whole subject (AGW) the more evidence I find that they (the models)are failing to do this.

There is some terrific stuff on Climate Audit at the moment which, since it's successful debunking of the Mann hockey stick, is growing in credibility.

When I first started looking at all this I assumed that historical temperature measurement was trustworthy (because they've been doing it for years). Now I don't even trust that on the global scale, before it was mainly modelling ability I was dubious about.

Where are you now on the AGW scepticometer, more or less since you started your investigations and what are your main reasons? Unless that truly was your last response.

Regards SOM

Son of Mulder.

quote:

Unless that truly was your last response.

Ha! No way! That was just to your previous post.

quote:

I find little inconsistency betweem your posting and mine other than I was trying to get across that models once running should predict measurably, testable results.

I thought you knew my views on 'dynamical instability'. Computers are good for many things; communication, entertainment centres, arcade games, an idea of the weather for the next couple of days and many other 'repetitive tasks' except a long 'in line' calculation that almost certainly has missing programme information (climate model or high-street bank accounting). No, that's unfair to banks because they do make regular updates and audits of programme content (data).

As an engineer, there isn't a model that I'd use which can't be cross checked with my own calculations. A model is an 'assisting tool' that aids insight and offers 'quick correlation' of data. Not an 'end result' product.

I believe we concur on this.


I do occasionally hop to the CA site, but I've not found anything much in my range of interest. It's good that they QA check data, but this should have already been done by the science community. Things don't look well for the 'peer review' system of QA, do they!

quote:

I assumed that historical temperature measurement was trustworthy

As with politics, you need to pick a party that you think may be trustworthy and stick with them until evidence shows the need to change. Unless you want to do it all yourself that is!

quote:

Where are you now on the AGW scepticometer, more or less since you started your investigations and what are your main reasons?

If there is an 'AGW scepticometer' I don't think the scale has moved on my account. I still think AGW is real, but not by the devices of CO₂ (I see this as a 'reaction' to warming) and the probability that the main mediators of warming are aerosols, black carbon (recent inclusion) and the tropospheric ozone that they create is my main proponent for AGW. Though, my concept of CFCs has changed. I now think that the 'ozone hole' has always been there until we discovered it and the Sun can do more damage to the 'ozonosphere' than we ever could.

I thought I disclosed my main reason for investigations. I want to introduce a mobile power source that is 'hydrogen ready' and gives twice the miles per litre of fuel than a conventional internal combustion engine, but was halted by ill health and thought I'd 'revise' the 'need' a bit more.

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

No, that's unfair to banks because they do make regular updates and audits of programme
content (data)

And every customer QA's rheir own data.

quote:

It's good that they QA check data, but this should have already been done by the science community. Things don't look well for the 'peer review' system of QA, do they!

It has to change as QA would also help identify incompetence as well as detect and deter duplicity.

quote:

As with politics, you need to pick a party that you think may be trustworthy and stick with them until evidence shows the need to change. Unless you want to do it all yourself that is!

Disagree, policy first then need to keep them on track. No point voting for soemone who'll implement well but it's the wrong policy for you.

quote:

I still think AGW is real

Based on what CA are finding about historical temperature statistics AGW is a misnomer. It's anthropic climate change that should be the subject of debate but AGW is a running hare that won't be caught for quite a while.

quote:

I thought I disclosed my main reason for investigations. I want to introduce a mobile power source that is 'hydrogen ready' and gives twice the miles per litre of fuel than a conventional internal combustion engine, but was halted by ill health and thought I'd 'revise' the 'need' a bit more.

I'd missed this, out of interest is it hydrogen cell, hydrogen combustion or other technology?

Regards, SOM

Son of Mulder.

quote:

And every customer QA's rheir own data.

There is that to it as well.

quote:

Disagree, policy first then need to keep them on track. No point voting for soemone who'll implement well but it's the wrong policy for you.

I concur, but this isn't what I tried to imply. Sorry, this was meant to be an analogy of choices (bad analogy on my part).

quote:

Based on what CA are finding about historical temperature statistics AGW is a misnomer. It's anthropic climate change that should be the subject of debate but AGW is a running hare that won't be caught for quite a while.

That isn't surprising when you look at the urban heat island effect, then realise that urbanisation is global. Black carbon on snow causes thermal melt. UV on tropospheric ozone warms the atmosphere. I'll not go on, but they are all 'man-made'. There is plenty of 'ammunition' out there to be thrown, but Gaea has good old H₂O in her back pocket to deal with these (and the ionosphere to 'crack' some awkward molecules). It's just that the way in which they are dealt with is obscure and can scare some people (enter 'bad' politics). It's high time more discoveries were made in the way Gaea cleanses in a 'pro life' manner!

AGW is just a 'label' and could just as easily be ACC, so, who chose that label first? Was there an 'ulterior motive' in the choice? The options are endless for conspiracy theorists here so I'll leave this up to them.

quote:

I'd missed this, out of interest is it hydrogen cell, hydrogen combustion or other technology?

I can't disclose too much, but it's a low compression internal combustion engine with greater thermal efficiency, runs on liquid or gas fuel (just change the 'burner'). Low NOx and low soot. You could also add a 'wood burner' and use logs, but that would make it an external combustion engine that exhausts some soot and fly-ash to atmosphere. This is also a bit off thread.

Best regards, suricat.

Realprimate, I see your post has been removed by the gods. I'm not sure this is the right thread for the article by R.T. Pierrehumbert you quoted but I read it before the excision and I make the following observation

It concludes that (page 15) use of oil and gas is not the problem but carbon from coal burning. It then goes on to suggest (page 22/23) more nuclear, coal with carbon capture and windfarms, more high speed trains and less commuting.

Sounds like the plan for peak oil so pretty much business as usual as far as I see.

Although the article did start a bit catastrophe laden. Given his mention os snowmobiles in yellowstone park I'm surprised that he didn't suggest the pre-emptive evacuation of North America as the supervolcano there is due sometime

realprimate.

You lost this post because the mods delete pdf docs. You could safely link to a web page that shows a 'link to it' though (if the page is on a recognised, genuine, site), or tell us how to 'google' to it (and if I'm 'trying to teach my grandma how to suck eggs', you shouldn't 'gamble' with your posts if you want them to be discussed).

I also got a chance to read it before it was 'scratched', but only got about half way through. I thought it was a bit OTT in places. As SoM mentions, why ban coal without carbon capture and not oil? In fact, why be so pro-carbon capture? It only increases oxygen depletion (even if 'he' [the author] doesn't believe this can happen). Coal is 'usually' sulphur bearing which aids surface cooling (smog and acid rain at worst). Whereas oil, mostly mobile power for transport (harder to 'scrub'), often gives a high NOx exhaust product which is far more damaging (and warming).

Perhaps this is a falsification of sorts.

Best regards, suricat.

Thanks SoM and suricat,

I'm gratified and somewhat chastised you took the trouble to think when reading the article rather than my "music to mine ears" speed reading.

I'll re read it again and get the link through somehow. Oh yeah those who forget the past are forced to repost . I've remarked on the Pielke's before and all those were deleted.

Now I read This on the good old Beeb. It looks like temperature measurements made in 1940's were 0.3 deg C lower than actual because of a change in measuring methods. So that mean that since 1940's the global average temperature has risen 0.3 deg C less than believed. Does this help the empirical falsification of global warming?

SoM,

The climate modellers will be pleased because the models don't get this dip.

Here's a bit from the paper. It would seem that the adjustments will raise the values (not uniformly) between 1940 and mid-1960s.

However, they are also indicating that buoy derived data that has been used for the past decade is biased cool which suggests there's been a bit more warming than we thought since the late 1980s.

quote:

The adjustments immediately after 1945 are expected to be as large as those made to the pre-war data (approx0.3 °C; Fig. 4), and smaller adjustments are likely to be required in SSTs through at least the mid-1960s, by which time the observing fleet was relatively diverse and less susceptible to changes in the data supply from a single country of origin9... The adjustments are unlikely to significantly affect estimates of century-long trends in global-mean temperatures, as the data before approx1940 and after the mid-1960s are not expected to require further corrections for changes from uninsulated bucket to engine room intake measurements. However, compensation for a different potential source of bias in SST data in the past decade—the transition from ship- to buoy-derived SSTs—might increase the century-long trends by raising recent SSTs as much as approx0.1 °C, as buoy-derived SSTs are biased cool relative to ship measurements

Steve_M

quote:

The climate modellers will be pleased because the models don't get this dip.

So how will they deal with aerosols because I'd understood that aerosols were the cause of the dip. If the dip in the graph was caused by incorrect measurements then surely the temperatures would still be dipped by the aerosols so would in fact still have been further than 3 deg c warmer without aerosols back in the 40's/50's so even less of a difference vs now?

Steve_M Of course I meant 0.3 deg warmer in my last post.

I'm guessing the adjustment between 1940-1965 will be reasonably smooth so that rather than a 5 year dip followed by 20 years of flattish or slightly rising temps there'll be a more steady decline. But I don't know.

In the following paper, models were run with natural forcings, anthropogenic forcings and then the two together - I've got a feeling you or someone else asked for a plot like this before, but I was unable to find it.

"External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings" Stott et al in Science 15 December 2000

Eyeballing the results, the model outputs are quite wiggly (not much smoothing) so hard to interpret.

With natural forcings only, the lines are pretty steady between about -0.2C and +0.3C
with a slight dip prior to 1900, a slow rise to 1940ish, steady to 1970ish then a slight dip and then steady till 2000.

With anthropogenic forcings only there's a slight rise from 1880-1940 then a slight dip to 1970 followed by a strong rise.

Added together they match the obs quite well except possibly a bit cooler in the 1960's. There's no obvious sharp cooling dip in the 1940's in any of the plots.

I've just googled the title of the above paper to see if there was a link that didn't require a subscription. But the second link was to a pdf that does similar studies. In a similar way, there is no obvious dip (in my view) in the runs that include sulphates ( Google meehl_additivity to get it).

Steve_M

quote:

I'm guessing the adjustment between 1940-1965 will be reasonably smooth so that rather than a 5 year dip followed by 20 years of flattish or slightly rising temps there'll be a more steady decline. But I don't know.

Well if there's no dip in the forties to 60's then then it should move the anomoly line (x - axis) higher on the anomoly charts. The knock on's from this adjustment will be many and will bring into question other measure periods eg why the dip from 1880 to 1910 ish then back up by 1940 etc?

This one will run and run.