Hansen/NASA created US warming?

Someone does not understand the concept of inertia.

 

I have before. If I do so again, will you remember? It's a rather lengthy explaination, so for the moment, I will not waste my time. Suffice it to say we might currently be at equilibrium if we weren't finished warming from the solar increases that ended about 1950.

 

In concept, consider this graphical representation as a possibility.

 

I used to care somewhat deeply about this issue (Climate Change), then I came to the understanding we cannot actually do anything real about it regardless....so now I tend to ignore it and live.

 

I always know when I am winning when I get an Ad Hom

Thanks!!

 

Yerrrrssssss

An unsourced and unreadable jpg from somewhere out there which has all the answers

I just love the magic wand school of physics

 

No simple derision someone who says yes inertia exists so why didnt it change instantly deserves no true response.

 

See, why waste my time. A graphical representation of a possible explanation, and I get this response from you? No matter what I say, you will not understand it, call it unsourced, or what ever excuse you can to be a denier of science.

Why are you here debating this topic? It's obvious you don't understand it. Without being able to competently debate the sciences surrounding it, you appear as a troll.

 

No what I got was an unreadable unreliable waste of time

But then I knew that was all I would get that and another Ad Hom - thanks for the vote for me as a winner!!!!

 

Ah! A misquote!! and another Ad Hom!!

Please keep them up!!!!

 

Only because you don't understand what I was doing. That's your problem, not mine.

The ocean is exceptional massive compared to the atmosphere. Solar changes make the ocean change. These changes are not fully realized for several decades. Ocean temperatures highly influence atmospheric temperatures. These are starting points you must accept.

 

No missquote. You simply dont understand what you are talking about.

 

Isn't that the truth.

 

What do you THINK you mean by this?

 

I know what it means. Apparently warmers don't since they think effect from cause is immediate.

Maybe you should look it up. It explains a lot for lag times of nature. People laugh when I speak of lag, and solar having decades of lag. Those of you who do obviously do not understand thermal inertia.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thermal inertia

[video=youtube_share;Ndzc4sAv0qs]http://youtu.be/Ndzc4sAv0qs[/video]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_heat_capacity#Therm al_inertia

It takes time for the shortwave energy from the sun that heats deeper waters to conduct, convect, etc. from its deeper absorption in seawater.

 

Maybe you do. But I have learned over the years that just because people speak the same language, they do not have similar understandings of things. Reserves and resources being one of the fun ones, energy and oil, that sort of stuff.

When I first read your comment I thought...thermal inertia...sure...I put a heating element into one end of a bathtub, and the ability of that temperature change to work its way through all the molecules in the tub, until you actually get an expected temperature gradient from one end of the tub to the other (cooling into surrounding air becoming an effect more visible at the far side of the tub). The amount of time as compared to the amount of water required to achieve that gradient being some measure of "thermal inertia" perhaps?

Anyway, that was the first thing I thought when I saw this term, and if I have thought of it correctly (I am not saying I have) then it strikes me as a perfectly reasonable physical world process. At all sorts of scales,the sun changing things as it warms and cools, the ability of the oceans to transfer heat from top to bottom, or in the case of subsea effects, from bottom to top, would really matter, and NONE of this happens instantaneously.

Do I appear to be thinking about this issue the same way you are?

 

Yes, think of the changes in the solar TSI as changing the thermostat to your heating element. In the case of the ocean, it circulates, taking about 1000 years to complete a cycle. That's an added variable.

Now here is something that in some respects, seem backwards:



The longwave from greenhouse gasses is absorbed so much greater than shortwave, yet shortwave has the greatest effect of ocean warming. The reason is because of the transparency. Water is effectively opaque to longwave, meaning all the absorbed energy stays in the top microns of the surface. Very little of this heat is convected to deeper waters as most is radiated or reflected back out. The surface heating does add to evaporation, and probably cools the ocean more than warming it as the wind changes the velocity of evaporation. Since water is effectively transparent to the shortwave, it penetrates deep and is fully absorbed, eventually, by the ocean. Whether you change the thermostat to your bathtub heater, or the TSI of the sun, you are changing the warming of the water. The heater in the bathtub will cause a circulation that may take minutes or hours to complete, like oceans take a millennia. The deeper heating however only takes decades to make changes to the surface of the ocean, but larger changes of TSI will show up in the longer periods of time, and is mainly visible in the CO2 ice records, trailing temperature, if I recall correctly, by an average 1013 years.

 

In your opinion, has this effect been properly accounted for by all of those who spend their time fascinated with changes (real or manufactured) in surface temperatures, and poorly predicting same for decades now?

 

I would also like to say, thank you very much for the concise explanation. I hang out at web forums understanding that most of the time, it is just cocktail party level of conversation, most folks are amateurs but specialists are few and far between, and might know valuable pieces of the puzzle that certainly an amateur like me has never considered. Plus specialists don't necessarily consider cocktail parties a learning environment. But upon occasion, when asking random questions and sifting through answers and perspectives of different folks, it is possible to bump into something not previously considered that certainly seems applicable to the issue and of value. For me, this is one of those pieces of information. Thank you for explaining the basics of how this works.

 

I don't think very many climate scientists consider the ocean properly at all, or solar changes. I think it's an inconvenient truth to keep getting grants for what they are paid to produce.

 

You're welcome.

I hope you see I don't just spout someone else's agenda. or parrot others words.

I use my own understanding and words.

 

Have you read my viewpoints on soot on ice, and how much the solar changes actually affect the warming?

If you are familiar with the IPCC, they are usually careful not to be too specific. However, when dealing with solar values, the do specifically state "direct solar flux." I consider myself as one who does real well parsing information. This lead me to look at TSI studies, the energy budget, etc. Funny how in the AR4, their value of 0.12 W/m^2 of "direct" solar flux is only what the incoming solar absorbs. The indirect is conveniently swept under the rug, and counted as extra longwave forcing in the greenhouse effect. I made this edited pic some years back:



Notive the incoming solar absorbed by the atmosphere. I changed the 67 to 66.88 for a comparable 1750 level. I derived the solar changes from Lean et. al. 2000, with data later extend to 2005. With an 11 year average applied to the TSI + background, the change was 0.18%. The way the energy budget works, all changes are nearly linear. Change the solar input to the earth, you get a 1:1 response in longwave up radiation. This change as a source to drive the greenhouse effect also gets a proportional response. In the end, you can in effect, change all values by the 0.18%. This means the direct + indirect forcing from a 0.18% increase in solar energy is 0.93 W/m^2, not the 0.12 W/m^2 that the IPCC truthfully stated was only "direct" forcing, but I believe only in one place. 0.93 W/m^2 is the majority of the 1.6 W/m^2 of warming the AR4 claims since 1750.

I am really annoyed at how the IPCC and those in the field will mislead us.

 

Well, that would certainly fit in with why they are only now getting around to trying to blame their missing warming on whatever they can, and the oceans being a focus. I suppose this is no different of any issue than when they ignored any of the other sciences in their rush to sell their perspective. They don't talk to geologists because all those guys do is ask why their models can't even predict the past and talk about all those past warmings and coolings without coal fired power plants to cause it, they ignore oceanographers because they might mention that in terms of thermal storage water does WAY better than air..maybe they should have just a MECHANIC about this one, and why engines aren't air cooled anymore, they certainly didn't talk to statisticians because those folks may have mentioned how the uncertainty of their assemblies might actually be overwhelming any trend or signal they hoped to find, let alone use those terrible words of "statistically irrelevant", I mean more and more this entire exercise is looking like keystone cops of climate running amuck.

No independent quality control, no independent review of methods or processes, no consultation with others or reconciliation of their trends with those of other science specialties (climate scientists = "special" people?), no backcasting for model validation which indicates a lack of communication with the much more results oriented engineering scientific community, I mean how much bigger can the list get?

 

I am as well, but I don't blame the IPCC, they are a political organization and if they didn't have warming money to pass around, what are they going to do, volunteer to STOP and give up their budget for first class travel to conferences to tell everyone why they need to keep their funding?

But I am more than a little upset with what is happening to science itself as it is turned into just a politicized debating forum as more and more people notice that things aren't as quite kosher. Just as peak oil rapturists (*)(*)(*)(*) me off because people then take my business of resource economics and scarcity less seriously, and I have to spend the first 5 minutes of any talk explaining the crackpots and cranks, and why I'm not them, people using science to sell something (Mead and the anti-populationists), get in on a ground floor business model (carbon credits) to take advantage of celebrity and make some massive coin (Gore), or just get a name for themselves by continually issuing proclamations of disaster and certainty when no such certainty exists, and they then have to scramble when reality puts the lie to their entire career.

And normal folks start to notice.

Yeah, I'm pissed at those politicizing science itself. Science is why we are where we are, and those tearing it down to save their political ass or budgets, the credibility of their prior work, to save face (those with careers still yet to finish), to make money, using it to sell fear to gain compliance, whatever, just pisses me off.

 

Have you ever read how these publications that peer review material select them? I think this should be of interest:

http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html

The opening paragraph for the reviewing process:

Now it is understandable that the process will in effect, only allow papers deemed of interest, it most certainly silences the minority view, skewing these numbers even more. When the warmers tout the 97% number, much of it is because of the selection process. Not the validity of anything.

To be published by the likes of the IPCC. So many authors competing for such an honor, and so few groups out there looking for the alternate viewpoint to publish.

The process I linked is for the various Nature publications, and I'll bet they are all equally selecting of material that will sell their subscriptions. It doesn't matter if it's politics, cable news, etc. ratings and profits end up being what can be sensationalized. Doom and gloom is sensationalism, saying there is no problem doesn't sell.

In the end, political... profit and power...