ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Yet while the attacks continue, the “hockey stick” graph’s basic premise — that the planet’s recent warming is unprecedented over at least the last millennium — continues to draw support from a growing number of independent studies.
Two new studies bolstering the “hockey stick” hypothesis were published just recently. One that appeared this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters analyzed seashell deposits on the North Atlantic seafloor and determined that 20th-century warming in the region “had no equivalent during the last thousand years.”
Another study, in The Journal of Geophysical Research, analyzed ice cores from glaciers in the eastern Bolivian Andes dating back to 400 A.D.
“The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1,600 years,” the researchers concluded.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Ever play street hockey back in the day with kids that would bend the business end of the stick like 90 degrees? Made for a wicked wrister.
Dude, i remember those. Your buddy would shoot at his own net, and the puck/ball would fling around in a 180 degree turn, and hit the opposing goalie straight in the nutz, cuz he never knew a shot was coming to begin with.
On a serious note, I just picked up a sweet arse Bauer One composite. The fugger is bad arse. I had been using my aluminum Nike for at least 12 years now (I play dek hockey in leagues), but it cracked last week, and I can't believe how much harder my shot is with this bad boy. They are expensive sticks though. Lucky I got mine on sale.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
So lets assume that these studies are correct and the hundreds of studies showing Medieval Warming period was warmer are all incorrect. These studies in and of themselves do nothing to prove that CO2 is driving the climate currently. They are merely claims about temps over the past millennia based on temp proxies. In point of fact that is what almost all "Climate" studies do to support the hypothesis of Warming based on Human activity producing CO2.
The entire hypothesis rest on the idea that increases on a trace gas CO2 creates a positive feedback loop with Water Vapor that causes the greenhouse effect. In the absence of the proposed positive feedback effect there is no runaway warming, if the feedbacks are negative the climate system is stable (absent outside factors ie: Changes in Solar activity, Cosmic rays in the atmosphere, the Solar System position in the Galaxy and so on).
To review the scientific method for a moment (as opposed to claims of consensus which is a political not a scientific term). You proposed a hypothesis, in this case Human CO2 production creates a positive feedback with water vapor which causes temperature increase. Then you create a mathematical model that describes the process. This model defines boundary conditions, assumption of basic parameters and variables, initial conditions, and inputs to the model. Then you run iterations of the model to see how the system should change over time.
When you see the results of the model, you then compare the results of the model with measurements of the system IOW you compare what your model predicts with observations of how the Real World behaves. If you model's predictions match observation you have a good model that describes the system accurately. If observation doesn't match the model then the model is wrong, some assumption or parameter is wrong and you modify the model.
SO what is the sensitivity of the Climate to CO2, a high sensitivity indicates a positive feedback, a low sensitivity indicates a negative feedback (IOW the CO2 effect will be marginal maybe .1C)
So how do the predictions of the Climate models match observation?
Alarmist climate theory depends in part on a plausible guess made in the early 1980s when there was insufficient data, but disproved by 1999. Otherwise, alarmist and skeptic scientists mostly agree about how much global warming is caused by extra carbon dioxide.
The guess is that water feedbacks strongly amplify the warming due to extra carbon dioxide.
We can calculate how much global temperature will rise if carbon dioxide levels rise by a certain amount, if the earth does not respond in any way to being warmer. Alarmists and skeptics agree on these calculations.
...
But radiosonde (weather balloon) observations from 1979 to 1999, the last period of global warming, show beyond reasonable doubt that there is no hotspot. None at all. So the alarmist climate theory is wrong: there is no extra water vapor, so the feedbacks do not amplify.
So the climate model that is the basis for the Climate Disruption narrative doesn't match observation, there are errors. The predicted did not occur where it was supposed to occur if the models were correct.
Here is a more complete paper (26 pages) on the Hot Spot predicted by the Hansen and his modeling buddies at CRU and what observation actually shows:
So now the question is where are the problems in the models used by the alarmist?
These two papers deal with the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect the first deals with the assumptions made in the Hansen/CRU climate models and how the relate to boundary conditions.
These are peer reviewed papers. The first is 40 pages:
In this work the theoretical relationship between the clear-sky outgoing infrared radiation and the surface upward radiative flux is explored by using a realistic finite semi-transparent atmospheric model. We show that the fundamental relationship between the optical depth and source function contains real boundary condition parameters. We also show that the radiative equilibrium is controlled by a special atmospheric transfer function and requires the continuity of the temperature at the ground surface. The long standing misinterpretation of the classic semi-infinite Eddington solution has been resolved. Compared to the semi-infinite model the finite semi-transparent model predicts much smaller ground surface temperature and a larger surface air temperature. The new equation proves that the classic solution significantly overestimates the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing to optical depth perturbations. In Earth-type atmospheres sustained planetary greenhouse effect with a stable ground surface temperature can only exist at a particular planetary average flux optical depth of 1.841 . Simulation results show that the Earth maintains a controlled greenhouse effect with a global average optical depth kept close to this critical value. The broadband radiative transfer in the clear Martian atmosphere follows different principle resulting in different analytical relationships among the fluxes. Applying the virial theorem to the radiative balance equation we present a coherent picture of the planetary greenhouse effect.
The bolded area is the important the assumptions in the models overestimates the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 forcing. This paper does not deal with observations directly, they deal with mathematical issues in the models, how the green house is models and errors in the boundary conditions (ie the alarmistmodels assume the atmosphere has infinite thickness, which you can easily disprove by trying to breathe at the peak of Mt Everest).
continued next post.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
Part 2 of Are alarmist climate models supported by observation?
So in Part 1 we saw that the Alarmist Climate Models predicting high CO2 sensitivity don't match the measurements of the actual temps in the atmosphere, and a paper of mathematical problems in the alarmist models. Now we will look at physical mechanisms to show why the observed climate sensitivity is low and why the feedbacks observed are negative and not the positive one assumed by the alarmist.
Another peer reviewed paper from Miskolczi, this paper examines the models in the context of observations of the actual behavior of the atmosphere.
By the line-by-line method, a computer program is used to analyze Earth
atmospheric radiosonde data from hundreds of weather balloon observations. In
terms of a quasi-all-sky protocol, fundamental infrared atmospheric radiative flux
components are calculated: at the top boundary, the outgoing long wave radiation,
the surface transmitted radiation, and the upward atmospheric emittance; at the
bottom boundary, the downward atmospheric emittance. The partition of
the outgoing long wave radiation into upward atmospheric emittance and surface
transmitted radiation components is based on the accurate computation of the true
greenhouse-gas optical thickness for the radiosonde data. New relationships
among the flux components have been found and are used to construct a quasi-allsky
model of the earth’s atmospheric energy transfer process. In the 1948-2008
time period the global average annual mean true greenhouse-gas optical thickness
is found to be time-stationary. Simulated radiative no-feedback effects of
measured actual CO2 change over the 61 years were calculated and found to be of
magnitude easily detectable by the empirical data and analytical methods used.
The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the
apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive
feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated
by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics
underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.
Spenser has just published his peer reviewed paper supporting his hypothesis that cloud formation and precipitation form a negative feed the first link is a summary and simple explanation of the mechanism.
Positive water vapor feedback makes sense intuitively. Warmer air masses, on average, contain more water vapor. Warmer air is associated with greater surface evaporation rates, which is the ultimate source of almost all atmospheric water vapor.
And since water vapor is the atmosphere’s main greenhouse gas, most scientists have reasonably inferred that climate warming will be enhanced by increasing water vapor amounts. After all, water vapor feedback is positive in all of the IPCC climate models, too.
....
But when one looks at the details objectively, it is not so obvious that water vapor feedback in the context of long-term climate change is positive. Remember, it’s not the difference between warmer tropical air masses and cooler high-latitude air masses that will determine water vapor feedback…its how those air masses will each change over time in response to more carbon dioxide. Anything that alters precipitation processes during that process can cause either positive or negative water vapor feedback.
Here is a link to the peer reviewed paper from Spenser on clouds and precipitation feedbacks:
The impact of time‐varying radiative forcing on the diagnosis of radiative feedback from satellite observations of the Earth is explored. Phase space plots of variations in global average temperature versus radiative flux reveal linear striations and spiral patterns in both satellite measurements and in output from coupled climate models. A simple forcing feedback model is used to demonstrate that the linear striations represent radiative feedback upon nonradiatively forced temperature variations, while the spiral patterns are the result of time‐varying radiative forcing generated internal to the climate system. Only in the idealized special case of instantaneous and then constant radiative forcing, a situation that probably never occurs either naturally or anthropogenically, can feedback be observed in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. This is true whether the unknown radiative forcing is generated internal or external to the climate system. In the general case, a mixture of both unknown radiative and nonradiative forcings can be expected, and the challenge for feedback diagnosis is to extract the signal of feedback upon nonradiatively forced temperature change in the presence of the noise generated by unknown time‐varying radiative forcing. These results underscore the need for more accurate methods of diagnosing feedback from satellite data and for quantitatively relating those feedbacks to long‐term climate sensitivity.
So we can see that observation is showing a scenario that there is no forcing for CO2 relative to water vapor, so climate sensitivity is low and more CO2 will have a tiny effect on Global temps.
So all the clatter about consensus about MMGW is noise, the emperor has no clothes or if you prefer Hansen's house of cards has fallen apart. Now the modelers would have to develop new models that show high climate sensitivity and matches the observations of atmospheric temps.
BTW the Spenser contention isn't fully proven he will tell you that BUT it is a much better explanation of what we measure in the Real World the the computer models of Hansen and CRU.
Observation and measurement always trumps models.
I would note all the quotes are taken from academic papers and are not commercial sites.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
The hockey stick lives
Linear Mode
