Q for James Annan
Al Bedo
a distinct maxima in the tropics:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Fi.1.06.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Fa.1.06.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Fs.1.06.html
However, the actual surface temperature changes
are quite different.
A 'fixed SST' model shows interior northern
continents warming the most:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Rs_ij.1.06.html
While the coupled model indicates the Arctic Ocean
warming the most:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Rc_ij.1.06.html
I had always assumed that resultant CO2 warming
would be greatest in the Arctic, because the
radiative forcing would be greatest there.
This is not the case.
Is there a good physical explanation for why the
regions of maximal temperature response are so separated from the
regions of maximal radiative forcing?
Or is this top of the atmosphere forcing, and increases in
bottom of the atmosphere forcing really is greatest in the Arctic?
(Also, similar response seems to hold for increased solar forcing:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Fi.3.07.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Fa.3.07.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Fs.3.07.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Rs_ij.3.07.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Rc_ij.3.07.html )
raylopez99
scientist, not Kofi Annan to diplomatically answer all your trivial
questions.
I will attempt to educate your stupidity by attempting to answer your
stupid compound questions, which show your stupidity clearly.
"I had always assumed that resultant CO2 warming
would be greatest in the Arctic, because the
"radiative forcing would be greatest there.
This is not the case."
When you ASSUME, Bedo, you make an ASS out of U and ME. Quit assuming
shiite head. Your model probably does not include convection. In
fact, most GCMs do not assume convection except vertically within a
small "cell" (adiabatic they sometimes call it). This simplifies the
math but in real life hot moves to cold over 1000s of kms, hence your
data, skatata.
"Is there a good physical explanation for why the
regions of maximal temperature response are so separated from the
regions of maximal radiative forcing? "
Yes, dumb arse. See preceeding paragraph. That said, the fact there's
an answer doesn't mean it is the answer. "Further research is needed".
They predicted the neutro on paper before somebody actually detected
it in a cyclotron, but that doesn't mean you should stop looking for
something just because it's predicted in a model (like a GCM). FURTHER
RESEARCH IS NEEDED DUMBO.
"Or is this top of the atmosphere forcing, and increases in
bottom of the atmosphere forcing really is greatest in the Arctic? "
You are confused. Perhaps you are confusing the recent reconsiliation
of the troposphere and stratosphere heating anomaly phenom by a Chinese
surnamed scientist last year. Or perhaps you are just a cross-dressing
confused queer, like most AGWers are.
RL
Coby Beck
news:WatOf.62$es1....@news.uswest.net...
> Is there a good physical explanation for why the
> regions of maximal temperature response are so separated from the
> regions of maximal radiative forcing?
You might try this Real Climate article.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Steve Schulin
just want to let you know that this kind of stuff isn't entertaining,
IMHO. The points you raise about GCMs and convection, and neutrinos, are
good contributions -- better than just entertainment.
Th question Al raises is an interesting one. Anything that help folks
understand radiative forcing is a good thing. I've previously hoped that
someone could come up with a nice visual representation of what actually
goes on with all the photons whizzing about. In my own industry, Disney
made a great short film showing how nuclear fission can result in chain
reaction. Neutrons were represented by ping pong balls. The filled the
floor of a room with tens of thousands of mousetraps, each ready to toss
two balls in the air when sprung. Then they tossed one ball into the
room.
I heard a radio interview of Ray Spencer (of Spencer and Christy fame)
for an hour or so a couple of nights ago. His description of how the
various components of the climate system interact was the stuff of
poetry. He also gave very eloquent explanation why no lab apparatus is
up to the task of representing greenhouse effect. And BTW, as to the
surface vs troposphere data, Spencer said "There's not really a
discrepancy anymore." And he also expressed desire to bet $1000 with Dr.
Hansen as to whether temperature will be higher or lower in 2015 than it
was in 2005.
Best wishes,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
In article <1141534516.9...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
Al Bedo
> "Al Bedo" <refle...@mirror.com> wrote in message
> news:WatOf.62$es1....@news.uswest.net...
>
>> Is there a good physical explanation for why the
>> regions of maximal temperature response are so separated from the
>> regions of maximal radiative forcing?
>
> You might try this Real Climate article.
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=234
Thanks for the tip.
Upon further review...
the plots indicating tropical maxima of forcing are at the tropopause.
Downward flux modeled at the surface
shows a distinct maxima in the Arctic
with other maxima over Australia, India, and the Sahara:
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/cp4x310.html
Some of that is from increased cloudiness modeled to occur in the Arctic.
The feedbacks seem so much larger than the original signal.
raylopez99
> Ray, I've seen you say that you often post for entertainment value. I
> just want to let you know that this kind of stuff isn't entertaining,
> IMHO. The points you raise about GCMs and convection, and neutrinos, are
> good contributions -- better than just entertainment.
Yes, we are in violent agreement. Call this NG "adult entertainment".
>
> Th question Al raises is an interesting one. Anything that help folks
> understand radiative forcing is a good thing. I've previously hoped that
> someone could come up with a nice visual representation of what actually
> goes on with all the photons whizzing about. In my own industry, Disney
> made a great short film showing how nuclear fission can result in chain
> reaction. Neutrons were represented by ping pong balls. The filled the
> floor of a room with tens of thousands of mousetraps, each ready to toss
> two balls in the air when sprung. Then they tossed one ball into the
> room.
Good stuff, nuclear chain reactions are. Off-topic, as you know, the
secret to minaturizing nuclear weapons was a "neutron enhancer" (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design#Neutron_trigger_.2F_initiator
). With a modern bomb very little bomb material need be used with a
stable neutron enhancer added to the fissionable material. And you can
store these weapons longer. MAD I know, but such ready to use, stable
nuclear weapons, in the hands of right / left thinking people like
Russians and Americans, saved many lives by averting WWIII. I'm not
sure a theocratic state as Iran deserves nuclear weapons however.
>
> I heard a radio interview of Ray Spencer (of Spencer and Christy fame)
> for an hour or so a couple of nights ago. His description of how the
> various components of the climate system interact was the stuff of
> poetry. He also gave very eloquent explanation why no lab apparatus is
> up to the task of representing greenhouse effect. And BTW, as to the
> surface vs troposphere data, Spencer said "There's not really a
> discrepancy anymore." And he also expressed desire to bet $1000 with Dr.
> Hansen as to whether temperature will be higher or lower in 2015 than it
> was in 2005.
Hansen would lose that bet--but the public wants action now, not in
2015, that's the problem. "Do something, anything" is the AGW
creed/screed today. As long as it's not too costly, I'm all for doing
some token window dressing to appese the Greens, to buy some more time.
That apparently is the strategy in the 'real world' as well.
RL
Steve Schulin
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
> > Ray, I've seen you say that you often post for entertainment value. I
> > just want to let you know that this kind of stuff isn't entertaining,
> > IMHO. The points you raise about GCMs and convection, and neutrinos, are
> > good contributions -- better than just entertainment.
>
> Yes, we are in violent agreement. Call this NG "adult entertainment".
Well, the "dumb arse" and "stupid" charges and the like in your post
were not entertaining, adult or otherwise. I apologize for not being
clear about that.
> > Th question Al raises is an interesting one. Anything that help folks
> > understand radiative forcing is a good thing. I've previously hoped that
> > someone could come up with a nice visual representation of what actually
> > goes on with all the photons whizzing about. In my own industry, Disney
> > made a great short film showing how nuclear fission can result in chain
> > reaction. Neutrons were represented by ping pong balls. The filled the
> > floor of a room with tens of thousands of mousetraps, each ready to toss
> > two balls in the air when sprung. Then they tossed one ball into the
> > room.
>
> Good stuff, nuclear chain reactions are. Off-topic, as you know, the
> secret to minaturizing nuclear weapons was a "neutron enhancer" (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design#Neutron_trigger_.2F_initiat
> or
> ). With a modern bomb very little bomb material need be used with a
> stable neutron enhancer added to the fissionable material. And you can
> store these weapons longer. MAD I know, but such ready to use, stable
> nuclear weapons, in the hands of right / left thinking people like
> Russians and Americans, saved many lives by averting WWIII. I'm not
> sure a theocratic state as Iran deserves nuclear weapons however.
Most questions of public policy don't lend themselves to certitude, but
I'm sure that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is a vital
national security interest of the US. I'm also sure that this has been
clearly communicated to the Iranian government, and several other
governments, in many ways already.
> > I heard a radio interview of Ray Spencer (of Spencer and Christy fame)
> > for an hour or so a couple of nights ago. His description of how the
> > various components of the climate system interact was the stuff of
> > poetry. He also gave very eloquent explanation why no lab apparatus is
> > up to the task of representing greenhouse effect. And BTW, as to the
> > surface vs troposphere data, Spencer said "There's not really a
> > discrepancy anymore." And he also expressed desire to bet $1000 with Dr.
> > Hansen as to whether temperature will be higher or lower in 2015 than it
> > was in 2005.
>
> Hansen would lose that bet--but the public wants action now, not in
> 2015, that's the problem. "Do something, anything" is the AGW
> creed/screed today. As long as it's not too costly, I'm all for doing
> some token window dressing to appese the Greens, to buy some more time.
> That apparently is the strategy in the 'real world' as well.
Well, the Greens won't be appeased, IMHO, by window dressing, so I don't
know why any realist would support such a strategy. I see the "no
regrets" kind of actions as a reasonable response to the uncertainty
about CO2 and climate. The fact remains that there's plenty of good
reasons for any nation to want to minimize the burning of coal, oil and
gas. And there's very good reason for USA to want to be as
self-sufficient as reasonably achievable in energy. But if we don't
improve on our public education system, I don't know that it matters how
well we handle energy and foreign policy interests, because we will be
enslaved or wiped out. My home county here in Maryland has annual school
system budget of over a billion dollars. The high school that serves my
neighborhood was (based on #s of students admitted into Ivy League
schools or somesuch criteria) ranked amongst the top ten individual
schools in the nation, according to Newsweek's latest rankings. Yet, if
I knew then what I know now, I would have home-schooled my children from
the start.
raylopez99
disassociating yourself from my support. I don't envy your position,
since the first thing idiot Greens do is not attack the message but the
messenger. You are obviously a target, and your advocacy of nuclear
energy, which I share, doesn't make things better.
Truth is however that despite my provocative flame-bait language--which
I've cultivated since the beginning of my posts to the Internet in
1994, when it was still text based--I am more right than wrong.
Flaming is just the spice to my posts.
You complain about wasted Maryland school budgeting, and I agree, but
it's a drop in the bucket to the $15.2 billion spent in the NYC school
budget. Further, education is not the answer--if you read William
Easterly's book "The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists' Adventures
and Misadventures in the Tropics" you will find that in the economics
laboratory called Africa, increasing the budget for education or any
such 'single mode' solution is destined to fail. Prosperity is a
"package" solution--there's no magic bullet--analogously nor is
stopping GHGs a ticket to paradise as the Greens seem to think.
The problem I have with the Greens is that instead of looking to
increase GDP, which will solve our problems, they seek to have us roll
over and die as a "solution" to perceived problems. This "too many
people so let's kill them off" solution is Neo Club of Rome all over
again.
RL