Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by the Weather Forums! Please take the time to register and join our community. Feel free to post or start new topics on anything related to the weather or the climate.


Photo

Two local views on the recent National Climate Assessment Report.

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply

#1
richard mann

Posted 09 May 2014 - 12:41 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3471 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

-

Both Scott Sistek - Meteorologist at KOMO TV, Seattle, the other day, and now Cliff Mass, Prof. of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington just yesterday, have posted their general views regarding the 2014 National Climate Assessment Report, put out this past Tuesday. 
 
One, Scott Sistek's, as an online article a Komo's main news site, and the other Professor Mass's, at his blog as a main entry. 
 
http://www.komonews.com/weather/blogs/scott/Climate-Change-Report-Projected-effects-on-the-Pacific-Northwest-258168571.html
 
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/05/northwest-climate-change-did-2014.html


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#2
snow_wizard

Posted 09 May 2014 - 04:40 PM

snow_wizard

    The Snow Wizard

  • Mods
  • 13783 posts
  • LocationCovington, WA
I'm impressed by how reasonable Cliff Mass's reaction is to the report. He clearly proves how over-hyped it is.

As a side note, I am astonished the NW has only warmed by 1.3F since 1895. I think the reason it seems like it has warmed so much more is because January has warmed far more than that, and that month is historically our big cold and snow producer. I know that May and December have basically not warmed at all since 1895 so that helps bring the overall annual number down a bit.

Death To Warm Anomalies!

 

Winter 2018-19 stats

 

Total Snowfall = 0.0"

Coldest Low = 27

Lows 32 or below = 4

Highs 32 or below = 0

Lows Below 20 = 0

Highs 40 or below = 0

 

 


#3
Phil

Posted 09 May 2014 - 09:38 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21595 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
If you don't have the physics right, you can forget about any of your predictions coming to fruition.

Physicists like Dr. Jelbring, Dr. Nicol, and Dr. Zeller, and myself actually represent the views of ~ 40% of the particle physics community. Here is a document out together my Nicol, very thorough.

The notion that increasing CO^2 has had any *measurable* impact on global temperature is laughable, and here's why:

http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...pwsdash#history

#4
richard mann

Posted 09 May 2014 - 09:47 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3471 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

The notion that increasing CO^2 has had any *measurable* impact on global temperature is laughable ...

 
... And so am I, for having hoped to elicit a more focused and responsible evaluation where looking at this report, even topic.

 With my apologies, to anyone with this same type of view, regarding the broader subject here.

 

(.. signed, Tired, of the "those, silly warmist / naysayers, and their hyperbole ..", attitudes.)

 

My view:  Anyone calling a serious report published, with any degree of ernest intent at all, "laughable", ... 

 

.. is "laughable"

 

.. No. No is isn't. I'm not sinking to this level.  .... It's B.S., pure and simple. 


  • Skagit Weather likes this
---twitter_logo-t12.png

#5
Phil

Posted 09 May 2014 - 10:13 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21595 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.


... And so am I, for having hoped to elicit a more focused and responsible evaluation where looking at this report, even topic.

With my apologies, to anyone with this same type of view, regarding the broader subject here.

(.. signed, Tired, of the "those, silly warmist / naysayers, and their hyperbole ..", attitudes.)

My view: Anyone calling a serious report published, with any degree of ernest intent at all, "laughable", ...

.. is "laughable".

.. No. No is isn't. I'm not sinking to this level. .... It's B.S., pure and simple.



Get an education. This "report" is a political ploy, and was funded as such. It will fail because it's based on physically flawed models, which are full of parameterizations on the microscale and macroscale level.

It was put together with little in the way of contribution from the particle physics community. It's crap
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...pwsdash#history

#6
Phil

Posted 09 May 2014 - 10:19 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21595 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
If you had read the document by Dr. Nicol, you wouldn't have responded in the snarky manner you did. http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc

The above analysis indicates that the warming of the earth by Greenhouse gases takes place through the effects of downward radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent, arising from molecular emissions at frequencies outside the resonance bands of any atmospheric gases, which could include those not nominated as being a GHG. It further shows that the actual level of GHGs in the atmosphere, which are those gases capable of absorbing any radiation of a frequency lying within the range of the blackbody spectrum from a temperature corresponding to that of the earth’s surface in any region and therefore covering a range of about -50 oC to 50 oC, (or 223 oK to 323 oK), is almost of no consequence in determining the increase in surface temperature from the Greenhouse effect. It is thus apparent that Greenhouse gases act only as a conduit through which flows the radiation energy captured initially by certain gases in the atmosphere. It moves from the internal energy of the absorbing gases into a relatively stable thermalised volume of local air. This energy flows almost independently of the number of Greenhouse molecules present just as water from a fixed source, flows through a pipe independent of increases in the diameter of the pipe. Collisions between these radiatively excited molecules and the many other neutral molecules, cause the energy to be converted to kinetic energy of an ensemble which is thus heated. This sample of air then transfers most of this effectively trapped energy upwards through convection to a more transparent region in the upper troposphere where the energy may progressively escape upwards through radiation, but from which most of the corresponding downwards radiation will be recaptured at a significant height above the earth’s surface by the denser warmer air at these lower levels. However, some radiation from the excited molecules is radiated at frequencies to which the atmosphere is almost totally transparent. It is this radiation and this radiation only, which will be in a fixed proportion of the energy radiated by the earth, and will be emitted in all directions – 50%+ above the horizon, 50% - below horizontal thus contributing to the warming of the earth.

In summary, small quantities of radiation from excited Greenhouse gases, at frequencies corresponding to a transparent window of the atmosphere, provide direct feed back of heat towards the earth, causing some heating, and towards outer space producing cooling. The proportion of this free radiation, relative to the amount of excitation energy trapped in the Greenhouse gas, is a characteristic of the gas and will be independent of both the total heat energy present and the concentration of a given Greenhouse gas.

-The results of calculations illustrate this conclusion and in particular shows that there is little significant difference between the spatial distributions of heat captured by the Greenhouse gases along a vertical column within the troposphere, for a range of concentrations equal to that defined at present, nominally 380 ppm of CO2 and possible future concentrations of 760 ppm and 1140 ppm. While it is not possible to calculate the actual proportion of energy returning to the earth via these very low frequency photons passing through a transparent atmosphere, the proportion relative to that held by excited CO2 molecules will always be exactly the same, irrespective of the total amount or density of carbon dioxide present.

The transparency ensures that such radiation will contribute equally irrespective of the height in the atmosphere from which it has been emitted.

Further, the diagram, Figure 6 shows that the effect of increasing the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is simply to change the height distribution, and then only slightly, of its thermal heating.

In each case, the proportion of energy contained as excitation of a Greenhouse gas, compared to that released through collisions to heat the surrounding gases, will remain essentially the same unless the density of the radiation were sufficient to saturate the corresponding resonant transitions.

This is demonstrably not the case, since the rapid transfer of molecular excitation energy to thermal kinetic energy takes place in much less than a microsecond. The CO2 molecules in only 10 m3 on the other hand, if half were simultaneously excited, would be holding 660 Joules of energy, an amount which could only be radiated by the earth in about 2 seconds.

Thus, at no stage are all of the Greenhouse gas molecules in a state of excitation and any increase in that gas density will only reduce the height above the earth at which the radiation is absorbed. It will not alter the total number in this upper state and hence have no effect on the proportion of radiation in the frequency range of a transparent atmosphere. Because of this transparency, the height at which the process takes place will have no bearing on the proportion, or amount, of radiation returned to the earth.

No attempt has been made here to construct a model of atmospheric behaviour which relates in any way to the detailed structures of modern GCMs. The emphasis has been to try to understand the possible processes which can take place according to the well established laws of physics, beginning with the absorption of radiation by a selective gas and the subsequent, physically necessary, redistribution of that energy which may lead to increases in the temperature of the earth because of such absorption.

The findings clearly show that any gas with an absorption line or band lying within the spectral range of the radiation field from the warmed earth, will be capable of contributing towards raising the temperature of the earth. However, it is equally clear that after reaching a fixed threshold of so-called Greenhouse gas density, which is much lower than that currently found in the atmosphere, there will be no further increase in temperature from this source, no matter how large the increase in the atmospheric density of such gases.

While some of the ‘pictures’ painted in this discussion may seem at odds with expectations, none of the apparently extreme circumstances described will appear as unusual to anyone with even modest experience in optical spectroscopy.

We refer for instance to the very rapid absorption of radiation as it enters the atmosphere from ground level which has been referred to before by experienced scientists suggesting that the radiation is absorbed in the first few metres. This is often disputed by others without reason. However, anyone with experience in studying absorption of visible radiation by metal vapours, where the density of atoms is miniscule compared to the density of atmospheric CO2, is familiar with the need to “reduce the temperature of the oven” to allow the laser beam being used in the measurements to get through even the first few millimeters of the atoms of the metal vapour.

The transfer of significant energy by collisions between molecules is also perhaps conceptually difficult until one realizes that the most common of all lasers, the He-Ne laser, which radiates effectively at a single frequency, easily provides an intensity over an area of about 1 mm2 corresponding to 100 kW/m2 compared to the sun’s irradiance at the earth’s surface, of 1.3 kW/m2. The energy emitted by this laser depends totally on collisional energy transfer from the Helium atoms, which absorb energy, to the Neon atoms, which radiate the same energy.

Similarly, the most powerful of lasers, the CO2-N2 industrial laser used for precision cutting of hard metals with power outputs exceeding a kilowatt (with intensity several MWm-2), depend entirely on the transfer of energy from one type of molecule, which absorbs energy from an electric current, to another entirely different molecule which engorges that energy through mutual collisions and then radiates. Yet some writers have criticized the work of Jack Barrett when he also points out the role of collisions in the energy distribution process in the atmosphere.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...pwsdash#history

#7
richard mann

Posted 09 May 2014 - 10:29 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3471 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Get an education. This "report" is a political ploy, and was funded as such. It will fail because it's based on physically flawed models, which are full of parameterizations on the microscale and macroscale level.

It was put together with little in the way of contribution from the particle physics community. It's crap

 

.. Not "presumptuous" at all. .. Let me ask you a question. With the lack of form, general courtesy, that you've shown me here above, along with the way that you've approached the main subject / "topic" of discussion more initially above here within this thread, ... What's my incentive where considering the idea my of taking anything that you've said or pointed to further, seriously. ?

 

If I want to read conspiracy theories relating to this theme, I'll google the idea. 

 

.. And anyone approaching it in the way that you have above (irrespective of what you might have said or cited otherwise.), makes them suspect in my view, as being a person with an agenda, certainly in line, with the types that you've suggested yourself here above.

 

Have a "studious" day.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#8
Phil

Posted 09 May 2014 - 10:33 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21595 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.
I don't think there should be an incentive to promote adequate science. I'm just angry at the fact that funding and political interests have turned climate science into a laughing stock of lies and failed predictions. Only when the global temperature begins to fall significantly will these bozos lose relevance.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...pwsdash#history

#9
richard mann

Posted 09 May 2014 - 11:07 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3471 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

I don't think there should be an incentive to promote adequate science. I'm just angry at the fact that funding and political interests have turned climate science into a laughing stock of lies and failed predictions. Only when the global temperature begins to fall significantly will these bozos lose relevance.

 

With the appropriate degree of respect here (i.e. certainly more than you've shown me above.), ...

 

First, your initial sentence here above is completely devoid of meaning in my view. 

 

Second, "just"-tifiable, or otherwise, .. Again, I'm not interested in reading about your anger at what you've noted, "laughable" in and of the main report the main focus of this thread. Nor either, otherwise, what strikes me certainly, as being your own private conspiracy theory type views regarding the main and broader theme having been addressed within it.  (.. And with this second idea, please spare me your citation of views similari.e. also more radical, and or otherwise lacking a more appreciable degree of form. This, nor either again, and if not made more clear perhaps above, ask me to wade through whatever materials that you might come up with to set before me, lending credibility to your, views and attitude, stated [already.] above.)

 

.. Do Professor Mass, or Scott Sistek ... allow themselves this latitude (luxury.) where having commented where considering (responded to.) this report, spoken with respect to this themeor any others. ?


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#10
NWFlow

Posted 12 May 2014 - 10:14 AM

NWFlow

    Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • LocationMontana

I get what you are saying, weatherphil, with regards to the CO2 etc., but these reports and predictions are better verified than your predictions.  We'll have to wait and see, I suppose but your outright rejection of reports with some scientific merit is somewhat concerning and telling people to "get an education" is not a good way to help share your ideas.

 

Please consider that science is based on hypothesis testing and your hypothesis of an imminent drastic cooling event has not yet been verified.



#11
Phil

Posted 12 May 2014 - 01:31 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21595 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

I get what you are saying, weatherphil, with regards to the CO2 etc., but these reports and predictions are better verified than your predictions.



That's not true. My predictions have been accurate so far, and I think my call for accelerated cooling (initiating around 2017) should verify...the positive TOA flux is now very notable, as is the spectral broadening. The troposphere reached equilibrium in 2001, the upper ocean (upper 50m) reached it in 2007, while the deep oceans have yet to get there (they respond very slowly for obvious reasons).

When warmists cite the deep oceans as proof that the world is accumulating energy, they fail to grasp the flow of energy. The deep oceans are much colder than SSTs given they recieve no sunlight, and rely on conduction/vertical mixing to change temperature. So of course they're going to take a longer time to warm to equilibrium..their thermal capacity is enormous. The idea that GHG warming (which is hypothetically thermalized in the upper troposphere) can be transported to the deep oceans without thermalization in the atmosphere is pure hogwash...added radiation requires excited molecules, and CO2's collision-to-emission rate (in the mid/upper troposphere) is about 100-1.

Meanwhile, these doomsday "predictions" have failed again and again, in all domains. The recent modeling consensus has produced a warming over the past decade (with a thermal max in the tropics) that never came to fruition, and failed to capture the global cooling since 2001.


We'll have to wait and see, I suppose but your outright rejection of reports with some scientific merit is somewhat concerning and telling people to "get an education" is not a good way to help share your ideas.

Please consider that science is based on hypothesis testing and your hypothesis of an imminent drastic cooling event has not yet been verified.


I see what you're saying. I've just seen so many failed doomsday predictions from these folks that I've become apathetic to the whole scientific process. Money and politics have taken over, for now at least..
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...pwsdash#history

#12
richard mann

Posted 12 May 2014 - 01:52 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3471 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA
-
.. You definitely need to start supplying some footnotes / links to support some of the broader assertions that you maintain, i.e. both in support of what you to say, along together with also where more working to discount / more negatively characterize what others have, per your suggestion.
---twitter_logo-t12.png

#13
Phil

Posted 12 May 2014 - 02:55 PM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21595 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

-
.. You definitely need to start supplying some footnotes / links to support some of the broader assertions that you maintain, i.e. both in support of what you to say, along together with also where more working to discount / more negatively characterize what others have, per your suggestion.


Thanks, good suggestion.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...pwsdash#history

#14
weatherfan2012

Posted 12 May 2014 - 02:56 PM

weatherfan2012

    Forum Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 930 posts

I get what you are saying, weatherphil, with regards to the CO2 etc., but these reports and predictions are better verified than your predictions.  We'll have to wait and see, I suppose but your outright rejection of reports with some scientific merit is somewhat concerning and telling people to "get an education" is not a good way to help share your ideas.
 
Please consider that science is based on hypothesis testing and your hypothesis of an imminent drastic cooling event has not yet been verified.

geos and F Guimaraes has also been strongly on the cooling ice age idea.I find there including phils idea very interesting.time will tell those giving how the solar aspact has behaved I tend to side with geos and f Guimaraes and phils ideas. but I do agree only time will tell what happens.

#15
richard mann

Posted 12 May 2014 - 03:02 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3471 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

Thanks, good suggestion.

 

.. How about starting with going back through what you've asserted / suggested .. above. ?
 
Minus any of the more sweeping and general characterizations that you've attached to the views that you've pointed to not your own, as being not more the fact or case per your view, more ideally. (?)


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#16
richard mann

Posted 12 May 2014 - 03:05 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3471 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

...  interesting.

 

.. Fine. 

 

Also very loosely articulated. And so only, at most.


---twitter_logo-t12.png

#17
NWFlow

Posted 12 May 2014 - 05:24 PM

NWFlow

    Forum Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • LocationMontana


I see what you're saying. I've just seen so many failed doomsday predictions from these folks that I've become apathetic to the whole scientific process. Money and politics have taken over, for now at least..

 

I totally understand the money/politics bit too, coming from the earth sciences.  Difficult to get any funding unless you somehow tie research of any kind into the larger climate change context.  And I truly hope your predictions are accurate...the ENSO solar teleconnections do seem to be quite prominent so perhaps others will verify as well!



#18
chinook

Posted 12 May 2014 - 08:26 PM

chinook

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • LocationMcMinnville

If you don't have the physics right, you can forget about any of your predictions coming to fruition.
Physicists like Dr. Jelbring, Dr. Nicol, and Dr. Zeller, and myself actually represent the views of ~ 40% of the particle physics community. Here is a document out together my Nicol, very thorough.
The notion that increasing CO^2 has had any *measurable* impact on global temperature is laughable, and here's why: http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc

I would be interested in reading any published reports that you authored...a link or source of reports would be appreciated.

#19
Phil

Posted 13 May 2014 - 02:05 AM

Phil

    Forum Fantastic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21595 posts
  • LocationCabin John, MD.

I would be interested in reading any published reports that you authored...a link or source of reports would be appreciated.


I've worked for the military my entire life, which is actually one of the reasons why I live where I do now. Unfortunately, none of our work is in the public domain, and won't be until at least 2021.
Personal Weather Station, Live Stream on Wunderground: https://www.wundergr...pwsdash#history

#20
richard mann

Posted 13 May 2014 - 03:08 PM

richard mann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3471 posts
  • LocationParadise, CA

I've worked for the military my entire life, which is actually one of the reasons why I live where I do now. Unfortunately, none of our work is in the public domain, and won't be until at least 2021.

 
What have you in fact meant to infer more specifically, here above with the word "our". ?
 
This with also "represent", that you've used previously.
 

If you don't have the physics right, you can forget about any of your predictions coming to fruition.

Physicists like Dr. Jelbring, Dr. Nicol, and Dr. Zeller, and myself actually represent the views of ~ 40% of the particle physics community. Here is a document ..... [?] out together my ..... [?] Nicol, very thorough.

The notion that increasing CO^2 has had any *measurable* impact on global temperature is laughable, and here's why:

http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc


— Are we talking, … [The views, held by] .. Physicists like …. and yourself [falling fairly closely in line with, and being fairly similar to those] of … approximately 40% of [all those within the greater] particle physics community. ?

.. Or otherwise perhaps, something more like, that those views, more collective, of the physicists that you've mentioned here more in particularly above, along with your own, being in some way more officially or by more specific design, appreciated as more representative of that 40 percentile's views. ? By general agreement, in large part perhaps. ?  Again, ....
 

.. You tend to truncate some of the ideas that you're evidently working to convey, fairly significantly. ..


---twitter_logo-t12.png