Page 46 of 52 < 1 2 ... 44 45 46 47 48 ... 51 52 >
Topic Options
#1200189 - 21/06/2013 20:54 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
datadog Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 16/01/2013
Posts: 199
Quote:
Wow, just wow. I gave you evidence of Heartlands lies and misinformation. That you are not able to accept the evidence is your problem.


Where is this 'evidence' CeeBee ? vague hand waves to sundry web links is not evidence. I went through the links you provided and the nearest i could find to questionable was a telephone call. (please note i haven't yet studied the phone call mater so wont pre judge)

CeeBee, please provide direct referenced quotes to back up your claims.
...Then, we can move on to one of my favourite subjects - The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) cool









.

Top
#1200197 - 21/06/2013 21:36 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
*yawn*

I'm much more interested in the science datadog - go play with someone else.
_________________________

Top
#1200201 - 21/06/2013 21:49 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003


An interview with IPCC lead author (IPCC TAR and AR5) Hans von Storch in Der Speigel.

Long and almost-for-the-first-time, a climate scientist is objective about what is happening in the climate and what that means for the climate models and climate science.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...s-a-906721.html

Top
#1200204 - 21/06/2013 21:56 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
No correlation found between the galactic Cosmic Ray flux and the low altitude cloud fraction.

Quantifying the importance of galactic cosmic rays in cloud microphysical processes

Abstract

Galactic Cosmic Rays are one of the major sources of ion production in the troposphere and stratosphere. Recent studies have shown that ions form electrically charged clusters which may grow to become cloud droplets.

Aerosol particles charge by the attachment of ions and electrons. The collision efficiency between a particle and a water droplet increases, if the particle is electrically charged, and thus aerosol-cloud interactions can be enhanced. Because these microphysical processes may change radiative properties of cloud and impact Earths climate it is important to evaluate these processes quantitative effects.

Five different models developed independently have been coupled to investigate this. The first model estimates cloud height from dew point temperature and the temperature profile. The second model simulates the cloud droplet growth from aerosol particles using the cloud parcel concept. In the third model, the scavenging rate of the aerosol particles is calculated using the collision efficiency between charged particles and droplets. The fourth model calculates electric field and charge distribution on water droplets and aerosols within cloud. The fifth model simulates the global electric circuit (GEC), which computes the conductivity and ionic concentration in the atmosphere in altitude range 045 km.

The first four models are initially coupled to calculate the height of cloud, boundary condition of cloud, followed by growth of droplets, charge distribution calculation on aerosols and cloud droplets and finally scavenging. These models are incorporated with the GEC model. The simulations are verified with experimental data of charged aerosol for various altitudes. Our calculations showed an effect of aerosol charging on the CCN concentration within the cloud, due to charging of aerosols increase the scavenging of particles in the size range 0.1 to 1 m.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682613001715
_________________________

Top
#1200206 - 21/06/2013 22:03 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Strengthening of ocean heat uptake efficiency associated with the recent climate hiatus

The rate of increase of global-mean surface air temperature (SATg) has apparently slowed during the last decade. We investigated the extent to which state-of-the-art general circulation models (GCMs) can capture this hiatus period by using multimodel ensembles of historical climate simulations.

While the SATg linear trend for the last decade is not captured by their ensemble means regardless of differences in model generation and external forcing, it is barely represented by an 11-member ensemble of a GCM, suggesting an internal origin of the hiatus associated with active heat uptake by the oceans.

Besides, we found opposite changes in ocean heat uptake efficiency (κ), weakening in models and strengthening in nature, which explain why the models tend to overestimate the SATg trend.

The weakening of κ commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50541/abstract

_________________________

Top
#1200207 - 21/06/2013 22:07 Re: Climate Science [Re: Bill Illis]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis


An interview with IPCC lead author (IPCC TAR and AR5) Hans von Storch in Der Speigel.

Long and almost-for-the-first-time, a climate scientist is objective about what is happening in the climate and what that means for the climate models and climate science.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...s-a-906721.html


From the article:

Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.
_________________________

Top
#1200211 - 21/06/2013 22:17 Re: Climate Science [Re: CeeBee]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003
Originally Posted By: CeeBee

Climate sensitivity in the Anthropocene


The 2CO2 Earth system sensitivity is higher than this, being ∼46C if the ice sheet/vegetation albedo feedback is included in addition to the fast feedbacks, and higher still if climateGHG feedbacks are also included.





They can't now claim the ice-albedo feedback will increase the climate sensitivity to 6.0C in the long-run when they have deliberately low-balled the ice-albedo impact of the glaciers and sea ice in the ice ages in previous simulations.

Ice age Albedo -3.5 W/m2

New Proposed CO2 doubling Albedo impact ~ +15.0 W/m2 ??


Sorry, it is completely contradictory. The ice age albedo changes have to be an order of magnitude higher than CO2 doubling not the other way around.

Full paper here.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/531/2011/esdd-2-531-2011.pdf


Top
#1200212 - 21/06/2013 22:25 Re: Climate Science [Re: CeeBee]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003
Originally Posted By: CeeBee
*yawn*

I'm much more interested in the science


At some point, a person should decide whether the above is what they are about or whether scoring points with selective information and selective quotes is more important.

Top
#1200214 - 21/06/2013 22:32 Re: Climate Science [Re: CeeBee]
S .O. Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 31/01/2011
Posts: 1533
Loc: Southern Victoria
Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis


An interview with IPCC lead author (IPCC TAR and AR5) Hans von Storch in Der Speigel.

Long and almost-for-the-first-time, a climate scientist is objective about what is happening in the climate and what that means for the climate models and climate science.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...s-a-906721.html


From the article:

Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.


Are you kidding CeeBee ....
they have most likely miscalculated the Atmosphere model calc's / inputs , and now your gonna hold your belief to calculation or modelling of the Oceanic system . The Oceans are by a magnitude of nearly as big as themselves , far more under measured than the atmosphere , and with far less length of accurate record . By % of Total Temperature difference they change by far more fluctuation than the Atmosphere .

Your quote of his words , of which your in total agreeance .

" Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. "

i can't take you seriously when you take on board this type of Science .

he's clearly outlined that they've had problems the atmopshere modelling , and now they are definitively saying that the oceans have increased more than before .
In what something like a two decade period ??? A Heartbeat of the Flea , riding on the Elephants back , on Earth Spinning through a Solar System that is lost in Space ......

This is why people do not take yourself or much of what you link to seriously ....

If it wasn't so sad it would be laughable .
Sad that others will pay for sins of others > ?!?!?
_________________________
" Solar Powered "

Top
#1200215 - 21/06/2013 22:34 Re: Climate Science [Re: CeeBee]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003
Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis


An interview with IPCC lead author (IPCC TAR and AR5) Hans von Storch in Der Speigel.

Long and almost-for-the-first-time, a climate scientist is objective about what is happening in the climate and what that means for the climate models and climate science.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...s-a-906721.html


From the article:

Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.



That is not correct. The Oceans are absorbing less energy than was predicted and ...

... the rate of uptake has slowed considerably during this warming hiatus/cooling period than the rate of uptake previously.

Pro-AGW people self-talk themselves into these "explanations" but the data they are using for this self-talk is most often the opposite.

There is a reason why climate scientists all over are talking about how the models are not working any longer. Because they aren't. It just took them years longer than the rest of us to actually look at the numbers.

Top
#1200229 - 22/06/2013 00:38 Re: Climate Science [Re: Bill Illis]
Roger The Dodger Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 22/05/2013
Posts: 66
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis

They can't now claim the ice-albedo feedback will increase the climate sensitivity to 6.0C in the long-run when they have deliberately low-balled the ice-albedo impact of the glaciers and sea ice in the ice ages in previous simulations.

Ice age Albedo -3.5 W/m2

New Proposed CO2 doubling Albedo impact ~ +15.0 W/m2 ??

Sorry, it is completely contradictory. The ice age albedo changes have to be an order of magnitude higher than CO2 doubling not the other way around.

Full paper here.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/2/531/2011/esdd-2-531-2011.pdf


Bill, where in the paper that you linked to does it say that "CO2 doubling Albedo impact ~ +15.0 W/m2", otherwise your argument just doesn't make sense?

Top
#1200237 - 22/06/2013 07:23 Re: Climate Science [Re: S .O.]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Originally Posted By: S .O.
Originally Posted By: CeeBee
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis


An interview with IPCC lead author (IPCC TAR and AR5) Hans von Storch in Der Speigel.

Long and almost-for-the-first-time, a climate scientist is objective about what is happening in the climate and what that means for the climate models and climate science.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...s-a-906721.html


From the article:

Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.


Are you kidding CeeBee ....
they have most likely miscalculated the Atmosphere model calc's / inputs , and now your gonna hold your belief to calculation or modelling of the Oceanic system . The Oceans are by a magnitude of nearly as big as themselves , far more under measured than the atmosphere , and with far less length of accurate record . By % of Total Temperature difference they change by far more fluctuation than the Atmosphere .



The ocean temps are not based on modelling...



And what did you mean when you said that "By % of Total Temperature difference they [ocean temps] change by far more fluctuation than the Atmosphere ."

If you were trying to say that ocean temperatures fluctuate more than the land surface temperatures then you are wrong.
_________________________

Top
#1200263 - 22/06/2013 09:46 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2323
Loc: Soon to be Mt Barker - SA
The ocean temps are garbage, in fact anything by NOAA and the NCDC are garbage and should be withdrawn, which in time they will be.

Take a leaf from Judith Curry, give up and try to get on the right train before its too late.

She is the smartest person in the whole debate and is leaving the corrupt ones in her wake to save her profession.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1200294 - 22/06/2013 11:20 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Anthony, your posts really are quite hollow and meaningless. For once back up your nonsense claims with some actual science.
_________________________

Top
#1200341 - 22/06/2013 17:03 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2323
Loc: Soon to be Mt Barker - SA
Its been posted here many times Ceebee, and you just ignore it and change subject.

That's about the only thing you are good at, avoidance.

Still wont answer the question, or Enrique or PG.

How much has C02 increased since 1996 with no warming as a result?
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1200343 - 22/06/2013 17:10 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Not playing your games Anthony as any answer given will be met with the usual "it's all garbage"

Look at the ocean temps graph 5 posts above you and explain, in a coherent way with supporting evidence, as to why the warming that is shown there is "garbage".
_________________________

Top
#1200345 - 22/06/2013 17:19 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2323
Loc: Soon to be Mt Barker - SA
Of course you are not because it proves the theory is garbage.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1200378 - 22/06/2013 19:37 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Go back to the peer reviewed science I posted the other day that you demanded someone do CB? You had a pick at one piece and were shot down...... So enough of demanding people to supply evidence, its all there for you to ignore mate!!!!


Edited by Simmosturf (22/06/2013 19:38)

Top
#1200380 - 22/06/2013 19:47 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
Landon86 Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 17/06/2013
Posts: 41
Loc: Indianapolis
NOAA global report for May is out, for the few who are interested.

* The global land surface temperature was 1.11C (2.00F) above the 20th century average of 11.1C (52.0F), also the third warmest May on record. For the ocean, the May global sea surface temperature was 0.49C (0.88F) above the 20th century average of 16.3C (61.3F), tying with 2003 and 2009 as the fifth warmest May on record.

* The nationally-averaged May maximum temperature for Australia was 0.80C (1.44F) above the 19611990 average. Anomalies were highest over South Australia, with a monthly temperature of 2.38C (4.28F) above average, the fourth warmest May in its 104-year period of record. The May minimum temperature was record high for the state, at 2.57C (4.63F) above average, breaking the previous record set in 1921 by 0.32C (0.58F). Western Australia and the Northern Territory each had top 10 warm minimum May temperatures.


* It also marked the 37th consecutive May and 339th consecutive month, or more than 28 years, with a global temperature above the 20th-century average. The last below-average May temperature was May 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/5


Edited by Landon86 (22/06/2013 19:47)

Top
#1200382 - 22/06/2013 19:55 Re: Climate Science [Re: Seabreeze]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2637
Thanks Landon86, I posted that report earlier today in the Temps Trends thread. It was met with the usual incoherent gibberish from the deniers.

Here's an example:

"Probably one of the biggest loads of diatribe you have ever posted CeeBee, which proves what you are all about."

_________________________

Top
Page 46 of 52 < 1 2 ... 44 45 46 47 48 ... 51 52 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
1 registered (Humidity), 250 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Adele, David Simpson., HannahJayne, krambo, krambo22, Pancake, weather noob
Forum Stats
29419 Members
32 Forums
23729 Topics
1469193 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image