A carbon tax will NOT work fast enough to address WAIS collapse.

I'm sorry but wouldn't global warming melt ALL the ice?

It is global after all meaning warmer temps ALL over the world. If not then it isn't global warming which throws this whole theory in the trash.

 

A carbon tax is just another BS tax thot up by the radical left to increase the size of government. Have liberals ever meet a tax they didnt like?

 

I agree.. but I do like Mr. Al Gore's film that is now out on Netflix............

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/should-sorek-2-be-in-australia-or-california.530861/

 

How ridiculous

I told you that we were entering the final stanza of The Denier Song and Dance

First it was

Global Warming is not happening

then

It's happening but it's not man made

and now

It's too late


Throw in various medleys and improvs and then wash rinse repeat...until it actually IS too late

 

And with 4.3 trillion USA Petro-dollars out there threatening the value of the USA dollar....
we really do have to discuss some big ideas...... and this is more down to earth than going to Mars.

P. M. Netanyahu, President Trump has a 4.3 trillion dollar problem....

and you Sir.... have the technology that I believe is the answer to his dilemma with all those Petro - dollars that are out there in the hands of companies, individuals and nations that are not exactly friendly with the USA.


https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534996/megascale-desalination/

 

OK.... I finally was able to give a rather specific answer to a question that has been on my mind for over a year now.

Geology, physics, high tides question.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-tides-question.463012/page-6#post-1069469619

 

Just skimming, I take it you're concerned that a rise in the oceans caused by melting icecaps will be included in your 15x tidal rise. First, if all the floating ice melted it would add nothing to sea level since the berg is displacing the same amount of water as the volume of water melted bergs would take up ,,,, with the only difference being the density of water at different temperatures. Water on land that melts and adds to the level of the ocean.

The momentum equation that drives the tides is highly nonlinear as are the dominant drivers of climate change. The moon applies a force that pulls on and raises the ocean. Even if the water in the channel is subjected to the same force, gravity is going to move water from the ocean into the channel. That water builds up momentum up the channel until it reaches enough height to overcome the momentum + elevation (ignoring Coriolis forces) in the previous increment. At each increment up the channel the balance is between elevation and momentum, since water is effectively incompressible. The maximum high tide occurs when the water rise offsets the momentum --- in other words, hits the wall. Since the force applied by the gravitational field of the moon doesn't change, and assuming the shoreline stays the same, the momentum will be the same and therefore the maximum rise may well be the same.

The fundamental problem I have is when so-called scientists take a 1-dimensional process --- the greenhouse effect and make assumptions by ignoring the other 2 dimensions including the Coriolis effects caused by the earth's rotation.

 

I haven't done the physics and math but I don't think a foot rise in average ocean depth translates to a foot rise in the low tide. The low tide would be higher but not by a foot. A high tide that is 15x low tide would be higher than before but not by 15 feet. Of course since a lot of things of a localized nature affect the tides, so who knows?
The high tide coming back before the previous high tide drains is completely goofy. High tide peaks have 12 hours (or so) to drain before the next peak. Besides, if that were true the high tide would continue to build with each successive tide .... forever!

 

What do you mean exactly? There are different models that explain the anthroprogenic influence to climate. Some are simple like those developed by Arrhenius (1896) and Callendar (193. They are simplistic in the sense that they consider only a small number of forcing elements and then compute a change in global scale radiative forcing as a single scalar number. Despite they're limitations they're still pretty effective. In fact, Arrhenius' radiative forcing equation ΔF = λ * ln(C/Co) for CO2 is still in use today. Then there are really complicated models like general circulation models that solve the primitive equations of atmospheric dynamics and use parameterization schemes to compute various fluxes between different mediums such as air-to-ocean, land-to-air, etc. or to estimate the evolution of a grid cell exposed to various processes such as precipitation, land friction, aerosols, radiation fluxes of varying gas species, and much more. Then on top of that they are generally ran fully coupled with biological, land, ocean, atmosphere, orbital, etc. submodules which taken individually and themselves quite complex. The PDEs that the dynamical cores of these models use definitely consider the Coriolis effect. They have to because most dynamical cores use Earth-following frames of reference which are obviously in constant state of acceleration thus the Coriolis effect has to modeled as a force just like all of the others. I guess what I'm saying is that these GCMs are quite complex.

That, of course, doesn't mean they're perfect. For example, feedbacks in the biosphere can be incredibly sensitive to even the most minute changes in these parameterization schemes. But, to say that scientists ignore issues like these couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Despite all the scientific sophistication you mention, the forcing still boils down to Arrhenius' equation in which alpha is only empirically or observationally determined, and subject to much change.

 

Too many years. Even after the momentum and gravitational forces balance it still takes a finite amount of time for the direction of flow to change during which the tide will rise.

Back in the dark ages of computing we used to solve transient momentum, energy, and continuity equations and the equation of state to model the blowdown of nuclear plants from 2000 psi to atmospheric in about 26 seconds after a postulated double ended break in the largest pipe in the system. Of course it took hours of crunching to get there. After all that for ever reload in every plant, the basic assumption built into 10CFR50.46 that we were modeling the worst possible accident was proven wrong. We didn't have to make a single assumption in modeling a single phenomenon to be dead wrong.

In short, there is good reason to be cynical when it comes to using computational models of incompletely understood complex phenomena to drive policy.

 

Arrhenius' equation is a simplified model. It's only estimating the radiative forcing of CO2. The sensitivity parameter (lambda) has been determined through 150 years of laboratory experiments and other data analysis. It can include some feedbacks, but only in a very limited manner. For example, the parameter can be tuned to include the water vapor feedback, but only because WV is in a stable equilibrium with the temperature so it acts more like an amplifier than a forcing agent which means the sensitivity parameter can be tuned to include it. Again, this is a really simplified model that was developed over 120 years ago so don't expect perfection.

 

I agree with this. We should be cynical of numerical weather prediction because they are far from perfect. However, they have proven to produce useful skill. And, at the very least, scientists aren't ignoring anything; at least not intentionally.

 

So, I've been watching the sunspot number as it declines in the current 11 year cycle and the most recent peak looking to approach Dalton Minimum levels ,,, and also understanding that heat capacity being what it is, it could take 30 years to feel the full effect. Of course, that all assumes that the next peak doesn't rebound.

Given the above, and remembering that the real bad year for Atlantic cyclones, 2005, saw disturbance come off the African coast and move East along the equatorial Atlantic, I guessed that this would be a less active hurricane season. My guess was reinforced by the observation that the temperature along the path from the coast of Africa to the Caribbean was cooler than normal. Was it yesterday that NOAA finally revised their guess from this year being more active to less active?

For the last year I've quipped with my better half that we'd better move South while we can because we're heading to another Ice Age ,,, and NOAA just figured out that cooler temperatures over the equatorial Atlantic might just make this a relatively quiet hurricane season.

Anyway, my feeling is that overreacting to things we don't know will have a negative effect. China is an environmental disaster and for us to overreact means that more production will be sent to the real environmental bad actors. So, I'm of a mind that we should do what we can to improve efficiency and reduce emissions without putting ourselves at a disadvantage. CA is a perfect example. Governor Brown-out replaced dispatchable fossil energy production with solar farms ,,, before sufficient battery capacity was available. Didn't they do that in Australia a few years back? The big one is coming, the shuttering of the Intermountain Project near SLC that powers Los Angeles.

People are finally admitting that a different flavor of environmental overreaction exacerbated the wildfires in CA and in the last year has probably resulted in the emission of more greenhouse gasses than all the power plants Governor Brown-out shut down. In protecting the delicate ecosystems that exist among the fallen trees and in the overly dense forests, we have created a bed of kindling that could take months to extinguish.

 

Hate much?

 

I agree with what you say, but Arrhenius' equation is still the primary (albeit simplified) bottom line in virtually all scientific literature. If you ask a top climatologist what would happen if we doubled CO2, he would not give you a computer simulation output, he would give you Arrhenius' equation. That equation is highly dependent on alpha; alpha, IIRC, has been changed 3 or 4 times in the past 20 or 30 years. That means, while it is useful, it is not particularly reliable.

 

Yes. I agree. Evidence suggests the heat flux processes between the ocean and air have up to a 30 year lag which means it takes about 30 years years for the air and ocean to achieve equilibrium if that equilibrium gets perturbed. The ocean is absorbing about 92% of the excess heat right now. The other 8% goes into heating the land and air and melting the ice. It just so happens that the ocean is still accumulating heat. That means even if this additional radiative forcing (whatever it may be) completely vanishes overnight the atmosphere will continue to warm for up to 30 years. The interesting thing that's happening right now is that the entire biosphere is warming. This is how we know that the atmosphere warming isn't just some transient heat flux process caused by the inertial lag of the ocean.

Yes. I agree. The Atlantic Hurricane season should see below normal activity. This is attributed to three things. First, there should be increased wind shear as a result of a developing El Nino. Second, the Atlantic basin sea surface temperatures are cooler than normal right now. Third, African dust crossing the Atlantic is a bit higher than normal. This has two effects. It blocks some of the incoming shortwave radiation from reaching the ocean surface which partly explains why that area is cooler than normal, but more importantly it works to dry the air out and it shifts the Hadley Cell circulations such that air subsides along what is normally the most optimal tropical cyclone paths.

It's extremely unlikely that the Earth will fall into an ice age anytime soon. And a cooler Atlantic is just a short lived transient phenomenon that won't really have much effect on long term trends either way. And remember, even though the surface temperature in some parts of the ocean are below normal the ocean as a whole is still running well above the 30-year average. The following graphic is the heat uptake by the ocean since 1960 and is published by ARGO which maintains 3500+ floats evenly spaced over the ocean to supplement the 10,000+ total floats in existence. The ARGO floats are noteworthy because they have precision instrument payloads that are used to more precisely measure the ocean at many depths and to corroborate the measurements of the other floats. Note that solar activity from the modern maximum peaked in 1958 and total solar irradiance has been gradually declining with bigger declines starting around 1990. So even though solar output has declined significantly both the air and the oceans have continued to warm...significantly I might add. In fact, everything continues to warm. That's how we know that heat isn't just moving from one medium to another.

I agree with this. Overreacting isn't going to do anybody any good and China is spewing massive quantities of GHGs and other pollutants into the air. But this in no way invalidates that the fact that the Earth is warming and GHGs are likely producing a significant portion of the radiative forcing that explains the warming.

I agree with this too. GHGs cannot fully explain the CA wildfires. Wildfires are a short lived transient event. AGW only predicts that we'll see increased occurrences of extreme events (like wildfires) as viewed over long periods of time. But, it says nothing about the cause of individual events. Individual wildfire events are throttled more by environmental management and policies. Nevermind some of these fires have been blamed on arson. All AGW does is configure the background atmospheric environment (decrease in relative humidity and increase in winds) into a state that is more conducive for fires. But even that is a slowly moving process that happens over decades. And just so I'm being understood correctly let me spell this out in no uncertain terms. Even AGW may have some minor influence it is NOT the cause of the wildfires in CA right now.

 

I agree. But, remember, it's utility is in it's simplicity. Anybody can quickly calculate the relative radiative forcing of different scenarios in a matter of seconds; no complicated numerical weather predictions models needed. In other words, with little effort anyone can get an order of magnitude estimate of the warming potential.

 

But the question and big unknown are if those quick calculations are accurate.

 

Well, we can do a quick check of his model. While the modern formulation of his model was expressed as ΔF where F is the radiative forcing in W/m2 Arrhenius' formulation was ΔT = α * ln(C/Co) where T is obviously the temperature in K. In 1896 Arrhenius listed the sensitivity parameter α as 5.4K, but based on feedback regarding the CO2 absorption spectrum he got from his peers after his initial publication he acknowledged that his original sensitivity parameter was too high. In 1906 he revised it to 2.1K. It was at this point that he realized humans would be the cause of a warming Earth and this prediction used the more correct 2.1K sensitivity parameter. This 2.1K figure includes the WV amplification effect. And in 1906 the CO2 concentration was about 295 ppm. Thus it follows that ΔT = 2.1K * ln(410ppm/295ppm) = 0.69K. The actual warming from 1906 to 2017 was about 1.1K so Arrhenius' anthroprogenic warming prediction in 1906 actually underestimated the warming by quite a bit. However, keep in mind that the solar modern maximum played a significant role in the warming in the first half of the 20th century. Estimates are that this probably increased the temperature by a couple tenths of degree C. So when you factor that in Arrhenius' prediction was actually pretty close...at least if you use his revised 2.1K sensitivity parameter.

However, there's still a problem with his simplistic model. Namely it was meant to represent the equilibrium climate response. But I just ran the numbers for the transient climate response only. The difference is related to the inertial lag of the warming in the atmosphere. Equilibrium response is relation to the total warming that occurs due to a specific concentration increase. Transient response is in relation to the warming that occurs at the moment the concentration hits that specific value. In other words, the warming that has occurred due to 410 ppm of CO2 today is the transient response. We still have to wait another 30 years or so for the atmosphere to achieve equilibrium with the ocean before we can determine the equilibrium response to that 410 ppm concentration (and yes, it's not lost on me that the concentration will have increased yet again making it difficult to decipher what is truly the equilibrium response). So in this regard Arrhenius' 2.1K sensitivity parameter is still too low. Afterall this yields only a 2.1*ln(560/280) = 1.45C doubling sensitivity which is at the lower end of the modern range of 1.5-4.5C.

 

Thanks for your post. I look at this:

and see at least some causation in this


but can certainly see how there may well be some causation by this




,,, begging the question, "How does shifting more US production to China and India by imposing punishing cost on our industries help save the planet?"

I do have a couple of questions. If ARGO started deploying in 2000, where does the prior data come from and, particularly when we see what appears to be a dramatic change in the character of trends, why are they on the same plot?

Salinity does interest me since the only way cooler water sits on top of warmer water is if the warmer water is salt water and the cooler water is melted ice from the poles or water that Governor Brown-out directs back out to the Pacific .

 

Very informative. I have a couple of questions.

What is the source of the 92% + 8% excess heat? What is the source of the continuing heating of the atmosphere if radiative forcing stopped?

I agree the ARGO floats are more reliable but the overall reliability of ocean floats to measure heat content still leave a lot to be desired, IMO

Very well put. This is how most climatologists believe but is grossly misconstrued by others.

 

Multiple sources. The IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis Report has a good summary though.

The instrument payload on the ARGO floats has an RMS accuracy of 0.002C. No, that is not a typo. That is 2 thousandths of degree. Refer to their FAQ here.

Then using the standard error of the mean formula E = S/sqrt(N) but replacing the "standard" error with the real error we see that the error of the mean is E = 0.002/sqrt(3500) = 0.000034C. In reality the error is believed to be slightly higher for other reasons, but suffice it to say the ARGO floats produce mean ocean temperatures that are quite accurate.

It's annoying actually. The media constantly misconstrues and misstates what AGW predicts. They are constantly claiming every single wildfire, tornado, and hurricane is directly caused by AGW which is totally not true.

 

Still not clear. You said with no forcing the ocean is still absorbing 92% of the excess heat and lad and atmosphere is absorbing the other 8%. Ocean, land and atmosphere are the only heat energy stores within 250,000 miles from earth. If all the energy stores are absorbing heat, what is the source of that heat energy? Or did I misread (or did you misstate) your statement?

 

Yes. There is absolutely causation between solar activity and global mean surface temperatures. In fact, you can quite clearly see warming from about 1900 to 1950 that is almost certainly caused by the modern grand maximum in solar activity. In fact, scientists think most of the warming in the first half of the 20th century can be explained by natural processes most notably an increase in solar activity and a decrease in volcanism. The problem scientists have now is that they can't explain the warming post WWII via natural-only processes. In fact, the net effect of natural processes should be working to the cool the planet right now. Yet we continue to warm. And we continue to warm in a very unique way. That is the oceans and lower troposphere are warming while the stratosphere cools. That is the smoking gun signal for GHG warming. No other process can explain that effect. This provides a convincing candidate to fill in the gaps where natural-only theories fail.

The graph I posted was published by the ARGO group, but the data actually comes from ERSST. ARGO shares their data with various groups. ERSST happens to be one them. ERSST consolidates various sea surface temperature datasets and homgenizes them. They have data going back to the 1700's, but global mean temperature data was very accurate until WWII when buoys were deployed by the thousands. The ARGO data began being included in ERSSTv4. It actually helped them identify biases in the older the ship/buoy measurements by comparing those older (but still operational) sources with overlapping measurements from ARGO. ERSSTv4 actually included a few fixes to their post processing techniques used to homogenize the different datasets together based on the input from ARGO. The end result only a had a minor effect on the warming rate of the ocean and confirmed that the older ship/buoy data was indeed sufficient for obtaining very accurate global mean ocean temperature data. Actually, with the inclusion of ARGO it was determined that ERSSTv3 had, albeit very slightly, underestimated the warming rate.

I know the ARGO floats also measure salinity at various depths, but I'm not very familiar with how the salinity data is used.