tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post527201200803840794..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds greenhouse gases causing radiative cooling, not warming, at current Earth surface temperaturesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-72274921355130507372016-02-04T06:15:15.185-08:002016-02-04T06:15:15.185-08:00MS,
As far as I can see, the original article is ...MS,<br /><br />As far as I can see, the original article is only about the organization of convection/clouds/thunderstorms from individual small scale one's into one of much larger scale. No mention of this anywhere in the article about the influence of the reorganization on surface temperatures...<br />I don't know what that influence is, I suppose that aggregation intp one big convection will have a cooling effect, but you can't deduce that from this article.<br />The "negative feedback" of GHGs is this article is about aggregation, not directly about temperatures...Ferdinand Engelbeenhttp://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-57847893814909037522016-01-18T15:12:46.019-08:002016-01-18T15:12:46.019-08:00Bull. No quotes are taken out of context, and a fu...Bull. No quotes are taken out of context, and a full 8 paragraphs from the paper are excerpted above, as well as a copy of the entire paper. <br /><br />If ANONYMOUS understood radiative-convective equilibrium on Earth and other planets as outlined by the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal greenhouse theory, the HS 'greenhouse equation,' Chilingar et al, Kimoto, Wilde, et al, ANONYMOUS would understand that at current Earth surface temperatures, CONVECTION greatly dominates over radiation in establishing the radiative-convective equilibrium of the troposphere, or as ANONYMOUS refers to it as ORGANIZATION OF CONVECTION. <br /><br />ANONYMOUS is so confused he/she quotes another source ALSO indicating a strong negative feedback on surface temperatures. <br /><br />Had ANONYMOUS understood the science, ANONYMOUS wouldn't be so confused and making false claims that the blog title is incorrect, etc. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-83489470331447953232016-01-18T00:48:22.620-08:002016-01-18T00:48:22.620-08:00Again, this article shows why these blogs are so o...Again, this article shows why these blogs are so often misleading, with quotes taken from papers out of context and without any understanding of the science. <br /><br />The quote in question "longwave radiation [from greenhouse gases] is a negative feedback at low temperatures [295K or 15C], but becomes a positive feedback for temperatures greater than 295–300 K" - is referring to the feedback relating to the ORGANISATION OF CONVECTION, (the subject of the paper) not the feedback on surface temperatures. i.e. Longwave feedback acts to organise convection above the threshold temperature. <br /><br />In fact, this could indicate a strong negative feedback on temperatures; another paper <br />"Missing iris effect as a possible cause of muted hydrological change and high climate sensitivity in models Thorsten Mauritsen & Bjorn Stevens, Nature Geoscience, 8, 346–351, doi:10.1038/ngeo2414 " picks up on this -<br /> <br />had the blog author understood the science, then this point would have surely have been picked up, but instead the quote is completely incorrect and misleading to readers. So to repeat, the blog title is completely incorrect, the article is referring to something completely different!!!<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-23079853950389006692015-07-30T07:37:33.048-07:002015-07-30T07:37:33.048-07:00The IPCC (2007) has identified the extent to which...The IPCC (2007) has identified the extent to which we are uncertain about our observational estimates of radiative forcing of ocean heat content changes and longwave forcing.<br />-----<br />http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3-2-1.html<br />"Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes (see Supplementary Material, Figure S8.14) are not well observed. Normally, they are inferred from observations of other fields, such as surface temperature and winds. Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square metre for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean."<br />-----<br />The uncertainty range for the estimate of heat flux forcing of ocean heat content is *tens* of W/m-2. Conservatively, then, we're looking at least ~20 W/m-2 worth of uncertainty in the observational estimates of the CO2 forcing of ocean heat content. Consider that the IPCC has concluded that the total radiative forcing for CO2 since 1750 is ~1.8 W/m-2. This means that the observational uncertainty range is at least ten times larger than the assumed forcing itself.<br />-----<br />The error range for longwave forcing is also depicted in the Supplementary Material section of AR4:<br />-----<br />https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter8-supp-material.pdf<br />Figure S8.7 (page SM.8.36) shows: "Individual model errors in annual-mean zonally-averaged outgoing longwave radiation" The error range for longwave forcing is ~20 W/m-2, which means, again, that the observed model errors are more than 10 times greater than the alleged net radiative forcing for CO2 (1.8 W/m-2).<br />---- <br />The American Physical Society climate change framework document (2014) also focused on this very observational uncertainty/error radiative forcing problem when they asked this highly relevant question (that has gone unanswered):<br />-----<br />http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf<br />"Reliable climate hindcasts and projections therefore require that the state of the oceans (current, temperature, salinity …) be known well on long timescales. Yet, as illustrated in WG1 AR5 Figure 3.A.2, good observational coverage has been available for less than a decade. With uncertainty in ocean data being ten times larger than the total magnitude of the warming attributed to anthropogenic sources, and combined with the IPCC’s conclusion than it has less than 10% confidence that it can separate long-term trends from regular variability, why is it reasonable to conclude that increases in GMST are attributable to [anthropogenic] radiative forcing rather than to ocean variability?"<br />Kenneth Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00198431792165032103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-80067373908404668282015-07-29T09:54:39.232-07:002015-07-29T09:54:39.232-07:00Kimoto's papers may also be of interest to you...Kimoto's papers may also be of interest to you.<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html<br /><br />If you'd be interested in submitting a guest post, contact me at hockeyschtick at g mail dot comMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-101256494214236892015-07-29T09:30:45.271-07:002015-07-29T09:30:45.271-07:00Hi. I've been working on globally averaged alt...Hi. I've been working on globally averaged altitude figures recently and can see some analogies here. I have a calculation that supports fully the dT/dh=-g/Cp argument through comparison of relevant energies per unit mass. This simple calculation supports the assumption that the atmosphere is extremely adiabatic with zero radiative enhancement of lower tropospheric temperatures.<br /> The globally averaged properties of air at 7.5km (potential, thermal, and latent) are compared with surface conditions by projection of a near dry air lapse. If the thermal pool has then subtracted from it the required difference in specific humidity (the energy required to vaporise the difference) then the globally averaged surface temperature is revealed. To 0.2K.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18269671491587639699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-24419897139303724502015-07-25T04:20:19.098-07:002015-07-25T04:20:19.098-07:00Just more models?Just more models?RoHanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-73985595254443257062015-07-19T12:17:21.505-07:002015-07-19T12:17:21.505-07:00Good luck to them...paper is 29 pages long & r...Good luck to them...paper is 29 pages long & repeats countless times that GHGs cause radiative *cooling* for surface temps up to 295K. Paper also uses the same radiative code as IPCC/NCAR models, and another popular radiative code for verification. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-30214722597954638542015-07-19T11:50:44.844-07:002015-07-19T11:50:44.844-07:00I'm going to be curious to see if anyone jumps...I'm going to be curious to see if anyone jumps all over this paper in the next few days.Otterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803844140223954870noreply@blogger.com