Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pierrehumbert on 09/02/2012 20:34:35 MDT Print View

"He a computer programmer by the way, not a trained Earth scientist."

Haha, that is sooo funny coming from you. At least he manages to publish his ideas.

"And I didn't dismiss his theory because he's one of the high priests of AGW. I criticised it because it doesn't accord with the MEASURED DATA."

Ummm, this is not how I see it. You take data from all sorts of sources, just like other people who study the topics. The only thing that is different is in the interpretation of the data. This is why I called it a religious debate. Any of the very large data sets can be interpreted in different ways. You choose one way, others choose a different (and often quite opposite) interpretation. Often your interpretation is in contrast to the very bodies that collected the data. You blame it on some kind of conspiracy. Whatever. I blame it on the obvious fact that climate is so complicated that no one an say for sure on either side. I am certainly convinced that the science is not settled, but it's a big leap from that to stating that the only important factors influencing climate are natural. YOU don't know enough to state that, nor does the other side know enough to state the opposite. It is not the data that is at issue IMHO, only the interpretation.

Oh, I'm going to contradict myself here, as even the data is sometimes suspicious. the ACRIM III TSI data (and a lot of other satellite's data) has now been shown to be highly inaccurate, due to both design errors and drift. So even this data is widely open to interpretation in the light of better instrumentation.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pierrehumbert on 09/03/2012 03:31:14 MDT Print View

"He a computer programmer by the way, not a trained Earth scientist."
Haha, that is sooo funny coming from you.


I'm just pointing out that he has no better formal qualifications in the area than I do.

At least he manages to publish his ideas.

I went three better, I got a scientist who really is qualified in the field to publish my ideas after he double checked and validated them and got them through peer review. Pierrehumbert's book is not peer reviewed, and there's a reason he published a book instead of submitting his theory to peer review. No self respecting journal would print it. The IPCC themselves don't actually tell us how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work in their multi-hundred page report either. They say they will in an early chapter, but later on - nada.

Doesn't that tell you something? Read this short article on my blog:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/roy-clark-where-it-all-went-wrong-with-climate-science/


"And I didn't dismiss his theory because he's one of the high priests of AGW. I criticised it because it doesn't accord with the MEASURED DATA (as well as failing theoretically from first principles)."

Often your interpretation is in contrast to the very bodies that collected the data. You blame it on some kind of conspiracy.

No, I blame it on the unreflecting (but well paid) herding instinct of the consenseless.

I am certainly convinced that the science is not settled, but it's a big leap from that to stating that the only important factors influencing climate are natural. YOU don't know enough to state that, nor does the other side know enough to state the opposite. It is not the data that is at issue IMHO, only the interpretation.

The atmospheric greenhouse theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny in my opinion. It can't heat the oceans, yet the data tells us the oceans drive the atmosphere. My conclusion is that the oceanic greenhouse effect is a lot stronger than the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Basic physics considerations back up that view. Because of that, the co2 we emit into the air doesn't make anything like as much difference to temperature as the IPCC claim it does. The primary effects of the atmosphere on the oceans is via the effects of it's weight and the velocity of its winds on the rate of evaporation. Small changes in radiative gas content don't make much difference because convection dominates in the troposphere. Albedo is a function of the effect of gravity on sea level pressure, and the wind velocities determined by the rate the ocean sheds heat to space at.

the ACRIM III TSI data (and a lot of other satellite's data) has now been shown to be highly inaccurate, due to both design errors and drift. So even this data is widely open to interpretation in the light of better instrumentation.

We look forward to the better instrumentation, but I'm glad you recognise the problem, even if you mistakenly think it is solved. Case in point is the sea level satellite altimetry. We don't know where the satellites are in space to within a few inches, let alone a few millimetres. The European ENVISAT instruments and data processing found a sea level rise which agreed with the integration of surface datasets from sea level gauges at harbours -around 1.6mm/year until it started to fall in 2007/8. The Colorado.edu TOPEX/JASON series claims a 3mm/year figure. Guess which one the IPCC uses.

TSI is difficult to measure for the reasons you state. My theory doesn't rely on it because the period of record is short and controversial I use the 400 year sunspot record. However, the ACRIM TSI team have some legitimate complaints regarding the way the PMOD team preferred by the co2 theorists have abused their data. See the letter below.

.Acrim

Edited by tallbloke on 09/03/2012 04:36:46 MDT.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Better data on 09/03/2012 15:14:08 MDT Print View

Rog, I don't think any instrumentation is 'solved' just constantly improving, which means science needs to constantly update it's analysis as 'better' (or sometimes just different) information becomes available. This is true in all fields of science, not just climatology.

"The atmospheric greenhouse theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny in my opinion."

Yes, well at least you admit it's an opinion. Ultimately, that is all that science is, and if more scientists (of all disciplines) would recognise this, science would probably advance faster. However, I have seen soooo much 'data' interpreted by one PI in one way, and by other PIs in quite the opposite, that I am keenly aware of the influence that opinion has, aided by clever statisticians. Although I agree with you admonition for those interested in a topic to learn for themselves, in the real world this is not going to happen, so Joe is going to be heavily swayed by the most sensationalist reporting rather than interpreting 'data' for themselves. Data, in itself, does not necessarily represent facts however.

"I got a scientist who really is qualified in the field "

I don't know the man, but from what I can glean, he basically fits into the statistician role in his publications. There are good statisticians, bad ones, and average ones. Maybe one day he will have a full professorship and a lengthy list of publications in the field of climatology. For now, I take everything he writes with a grain of salt, just like everything you write. That 'grain of salt' means I read and try to understand where there is disagreement, and try to assess who I think has the best interpretations of the data. Hard to do when I myself am not a statistician. On the plus side, I was impressed that Scafetta admitted that a decent proportion of the increases in recent temperature are NOT from natural climate variables, but you have put a damper on that by saying you think he was just giving a nod to warmists so he could get his paper published. If true, it shows a definite lack of scientific integrity which is the thing I fear most from statisticians!

Ultimately, the best you and I can do is to agree to disagree. You believe all climate change is driven by natural cycles, I believe the evidence, on balance, points to a combination of AGW and natural cycles. Ultimately, the only loser here is likely to be Dean Fellabaum, as my feeling about your stance is that you will, at any time point in the future, be able to find a dataset that 'disproves' Dean, even if there are just as many (or many more) datasets that would disprove you. Can you tell us what proxies would need to change, in terms of sea temps, TSI, OLR, albedo, wind, or whatever for you to change your stance? Be specific if you can, like which monitoring stations/instruments/proxies you will be looking at. Please include and adjustments to the data that you will 'allow' or not allow. After all, a statistician can't perform their magic without doing SOME kind of transformation and filtering.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Better data on 09/03/2012 16:06:29 MDT Print View

Lynn says:
Ultimately, the only loser here is likely to be Dean Fellabaum, as my feeling about your stance is that you will, at any time point in the future, be able to find a dataset that 'disproves' Dean, even if there are just as many (or many more) datasets that would disprove you.

You know Lynn, I get really tired of this constant presumption of bad faith on my part. It's rude, demeaning and unnecessary. Dean and I agreed on which datasets we would use for our bet before we started.

Joe is going to be heavily swayed by the most sensationalist reporting rather than interpreting 'data' for themselves.

Sad but true. Which is how the alarmists have got away with so much for so long. The 'society of environmental churnalists' are content to regurgitate any old cooked up nonsense fed to them by press release, no matter how ludicrous. Whether it's the invasion of the king crabs, the tired old crap about spreading malaria, 5C temperature rise by 2050, 'endangered' polar bears, or any of the thousand things on the warmlist.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Can you tell us what proxies would need to change, in terms of sea temps, TSI, OLR, albedo, wind, or whatever for you to change your stance?

We've been asking the alarmists that question for 15 years and we're still waiting for an answer. For me, I'd looks for signs in the natural world that something outside the bounds of the sort of natural variability we are aware of having occurred over the holocene was happening. The Central England Temperature record jumped 3C in 40 years between 1690 and 1730, so the ~0.7C over 100 years we've seen in the C20th isn't too exciting. Around 1.5C for the recovery from the little ice age to the peak of the warming around now. I expect things to head downhill from here on in. Could cool quite rapidly over the next two decade though, before steadying out and recovering a little to 2070 before the continued slide down towards the next cold period.

It's all a bit dull really. I was enjoying global warming while it lasted. If Dean were to win the bet in 2020, I'd re-assess my theory.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Coming back to Pierrehumbert on 09/04/2012 15:21:21 MDT Print View

OK, I GET that you dislike Pierrehumbert, and totally disagree with his interpretations of the data. But I think you are either being unnecessarily harsh with his track record, or are far overestimating your scientific contribution to this debate (or both).

"I'm just pointing out that he has no better formal qualifications in the area than I do."

Since when did 'formal' qualifications come into this discussion. I am talking about publications, not qualifications. Pierrehumbert has a long (in time and length) track record of publications in the area of climatology, and most of it is peer-reviewed. This does not make him 'right' and you wrong, but when I am weighing up the balance of evidence, I have to give him more credit for at least trying, and successfully defending, his theories.

Li, D., and R. T. Pierrehumbert 2011: Sea glacier flow and dust transport on Snowball Earth, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L17501, doi:10.1029/2011GL048991.

Pierrehumbert RT and Gaidos E 2011: Hydrogen Greenhouse Planets beyond the Habitable Zone. Ap. J. Lett.,734 doi:10.1088/2041-8205/734/1/L13 . pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2011: A palette of climates for Gliese 581g. Ap. J. Lett., 726 doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/726/1/L8. pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38 pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2010: Principles of Planetary Climate. Cambridge University Press, 652pp. Online Supplement Publisher Link Amazon Link

*Archer DA and Pierrehumbert RT 2010: The Warming Papers. Wiley/Blackwell. Publisher Link Amazon Link

Solomon S, Battisti D, Doney S, Hayhoe K, Held I, Lettenmaier D, Lobell D, Matthews D, Pierrehumbert RT, Raphael M, Richels R, Root T, Steffen K, Tebaldi C and Yohe G 2010: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations and Impacts over Decades to Millennia. National Academy Press:Washington 190pp. Publisher Link

Abbot DS and Pierrehumbert RT 2010: Mudball: Surface dust and Snowball Earth deglaciation, Geophys. Res.-Atmospheres 115, doi: 10.1029/2009JD01200 pdf

Pierrehumbert RT, Abbot D, Voight A and Koll D 2011: Neoproterozoic Climate. Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences
39:417–60, doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-040809-152447 . Get pdf here

Abbot DS, Silber M, and Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Cloud Feedbacks and Arctic Sea Ice Tipping Points. J. Geophys. Res.- Atmospheres, 116, D19120, doi:10.1029/2011JD015653 .

Williams IN, Pierrehumbert RT and Huber M 2009: Global warming, convective threshold and false thermostats. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36. doi:10.1029/2009GL03984 pdf

Abbot DS, Eisenman I and Pierrehumbert RT 2010: Sea Ice Resolution and the Snowball Diurnal Cycle. Geophys. Res. Lett. (in press).

Lee J.-E.,Pierrehumbert RT, Swann A, and Lintner BR 2009: Sensitivity of stable water isotopic values to convective parameterization schemes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 L23801. doi:10.1029/2009GL040880. pdf

Mitchell JL, Pierrehumbert RT, Frierson DMW and Caballero R 2009: The impact of methane thermodynamics on seasonal convection and circulation in a model Titan atmosphere. Icarus 203, 250-264. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2009.03.043 pdf

Halevy I, Pierrehumbert RT, Schrag DP 2009: Radiative transfer in CO2-rich paleoatmospheres J. Geophys. Res.-Atmospheres 114 D18112. doi:10.1029/2009JD011915 . pdf

Le Hir G, Donnadieu Y, Godderis Y, Pierrehumbert RT, Macouin M, Halverson G, Nedelec A, and Ramstein G 2008: The Snowball Earth aftermath: exploring the limits of continental weathering processes. Earth Plan Sci Lett doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2008.11.010. pdf

Caballero R, Mitchell J and Pierrehumbert RT 2008: Axisymmetric, nearly inviscid circulations in non-condensing radiative-convective atmospheres. Quart J Roy Meterol Soc 134,1269-1285. pdf

Goddéris Y, Donnadieu Y, de Vargas C,Pierrehumbert RT, Dromart G 2008: Causal or casual link between the rise of nannoplankton calcification and a tectonically-driven massive decrease in Late Triassic atmospheric CO2 ? Earth Plan Sci Lett 267,247-255. pdf

Brogniez H and Pierrehumbert RT 2007: Intercomparison of the tropical tropospheric humidity in GCMs with AMSU-B water vapor data. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L17812, doi:10.1029/2006GL029118 . pdf

Brogniez H and Pierrehumbert RT 2006: Using microwave observations to assess large-scale control of free tropospheric water vapor in the mid-latitudes. Geophysical Research Letters 33, L14801, doi:10.1029/2006GL026240. pdf

Donnadieu Y, Godderis Y, Pierrehumbert R, Dromart G, Fluteau F and Jacob R 2006: A GEOCLIM simulation of climatic and biogeochemical consequences of Pangea breakup. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 7: Art. No. Q11019. pdf

Mitchell, J and Pierrehumbert RT 2006: The dynamics behind Titan's tropospheric methane clouds. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 103 (49),18421-18426. pdf

Sukhatme J and Pierrehumbert RT 2005: Statistical Equilibria of Uniformly Forced Advection Condensation. (posted on ArXiV)

Donnadieu Y, Pierrehumbert RT, Jacob R and Fluteau F 2006: On the primary control of the paleogeography during the Cretaceous: a climate modelling study. Earth Plan. Sci Lett. 248, 426-437. pdf

Le Hir G, Ramstein G, Donnadieu Y and Pierrehumbert RT 2007: Investigating plausible mechanisms to escape a hard Snowball-Earth. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 339 (3-4): 274-287 . pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2006: Climate change: A catastrophe in slow-motion. Chicago Journal of International Law, 6, 573-596 pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2005: Science Fiction Atmospheres. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 86, 696-698. pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2005: Tropical Glacier Retreat. Published on realclimate.org. link to article

Pierrehumbert RT, Brogniez H, and Roca R 2007: On the relative humidity of the atmosphere. in The Global Circulation of the Atmosphere, T Schneider and A Sobel, eds. Princeton University Press. pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2005: Climate dynamics of a hard snowball Earth. J. Geophys Res -- Atmospheres. 110(D1) D01111 doi:10.1029/2004JD005162. pdf

Pierrehumbert 2004a: Warming the world. Nature 432 677. pdf

Pierrehumbert 2004b: Translation of Mémoire sur les Températures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Planétaires by J-B J. Fourier. Nature 432 (online supplementary material to Pierrehumbert, 2004a) pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2004: High levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide necessary for the termination of global glaciation Nature 429, 646-649. pdf

Goodman JC, Collins GC, Marshall J and Pierrehumbert RT 2004: Hydrothermal Plume Dynamics on Europa: Implications for Chaos Formation. J. Geophys. Res. 109(E3),E03008, doi:10.1029/2003JE002073. pdf

Goodman, JC and Pierrehumbert RT 2003: Glacial flow of floating marine
ice in Snowball Earth. J. Geophys. Res. 108 (C10),3308,doi:10.1029/2002JC001471. pdf

Alley RB, Marotzke J, Nordhaus WD, Overpeck JT,Peteet DM,Pielke RA Jr.,
Pierrehumbert RT, Rhines PB, Stocker TF,L. Talley LD,Wallace JM 2003: Abrupt Climate Change. Science 299, 2005-2010. pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2003: Counting the Cost (Review of {\it Risk and
Reason} by C. Sunstein). Nature 422 263. pdf

Sukhatme J and Pierrehumbert RT 2002: Decay of passive scalars under the action of single scale smooth velocity fields in bounded two-dimensional domains: From non-self-similar probability distribution functions to self-similar eigenmodes. Phys. Rev. E 66, art. no. 056302. pdf erratum

Sukhatme J and Pierrehumbert RT 2002: Surface quasigeostrophic dynamics: The study of an active scalar. Chaos 12, 439-450. pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2002: The Hydrologic Cycle in Deep Time Climate Problems. Nature 419,191-198. pdf

Alley RB, Marotzke J, Nordhaus W, Overpeck J, Peteet D, Pielke R, Pierrehumbert RT, Rhines P, Stocker T, Talley L and Wallace JM 2002: Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises National Academy Press,244pp. online

Stocker TF,Clarke GKC,Le Treut H, Lindzen RS, Meleshko VP, Mugara RK, Palmer TN, Pierrehumbert RT, Sellers PJ, Trenberth KE, and Willebrand J 2001: Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks, Ch. 7 in The Physics of Climate Change: IPCC WG1 Third Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press.

Rowley DB, Pierrehumbert RT and Currie BS 2001: A new approach to stable isotope-based paleoaltimetry: implications for paleoaltimetry and paleohypsometry of the High Himalaya since the Late Miocene. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 188,253-268. abstract pdf online .

Poulsen CJ, Pierrehumbert RT, and Jacob RL 2001: Impact of ocean dynamics on the simulation of the Neoproterozoic "snowball Earth" Geophysical Research Letters , 28,1575-1578. pdf online .

Hu Y, Pierrehumbert RT and Nakamura N 2001: Probability distribution function of tracer differences and the diffusive scale in the stratosphere. Unpublished note. pdf online .

Hu Y and Pierrehumbert RT 2001: The Advection-Diffusion Problem for Stratospheric Flow: Part II. Probability distribution function of tracer gradients. J. Atmos. Sci. 59, 2830-2845.. abstract postscript pdf .

Hu Y and Pierrehumbert RT 2001: The Advection-Diffusion Problem for Stratospheric Flow: Part I. Concentration probability distribution function. J. Atmos. Sci. 58,1493-1510.. abstract postscript pdf .

Ngan K and Pierrehumbert RT 2000: Spatially inhomogeneous and intermittent random advection. Phys. Fluids 12, 822-834.

Pierrehumbert RT 2000: Climate change and the Tropical Pacific: The Sleeping Dragon Wakes. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 97, 1355-1358.abstract pdf

Pierrehumbert RT 2000: Lattice models of advection-diffusion Chaos 10, 61-74.abstract postscript pdf . See commentary on experimental work confirming the prediction of strange eigenmodes

Pierrehumbert RT 1999: Huascaran d18O as an indicator of tropical climate during the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophysical Research Letters , 26, 1341-1344.. abstract postscript pdf online

Pierrehumbert RT 1999: Subtropical water vapor as a mediator of rapid global climate change. . in Clark PU, Webb RS and Keigwin LD eds. Mechanisms of global change at millennial time scales. American Geophysical Union:Washington, D.C. Geophysical Monograph Series 112, 394 pp. .abstract postscript pdf

Boatto S and Pierrehumbert RT 1999: Dynamics of a passive tracer in a velocity field of four identical point vortices. J. Fluid Mech 394, 137-174. abstract postscript pdf

Pierrehumbert RT and Roca R 1998: Evidence for control of Atlantic subtropical humidity by large scale advection. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 4537-4540. pdf online

Pierrehumbert RT 1998: Lateral mixing as a source of subtropical water vapor. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 151-154. abstract postscript pdf

Forget, F and Pierrehumbert RT 1997: Warming Early Mars with carbon dioxide clouds that scatter infrared radiation. Science 278, 1273 - 1276. abstract postscript pdf

Pierrehumbert, RT and Erlick C 1997: On the scattering greenhouse effect of CO2 ice clouds. J. Atmos. Sci 55, 1897 - 1903. abstract postscript pdf

Pierrehumbert, RT 1996: Anomalous scaling of high cloud variability in the tropical Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1095-1098.

Swanson K and Pierrehumbert RT 1997: Lower-tropospheric heat transport in the Pacific storm track. J. Atmos. Sci 54, 1533 - 1543 .

Emanuel, K and Pierrehumbert, RT 1996: Microphysical and dynamical control of tropospheric water vapor. in Clouds, Chemistry and Climate, Nato ASI Series 35. Springer:Berlin, 260pp.

Pierrehumbert, RT 1996: Some remarks on mechanisms for the regulation of tropical sea surface temperature. in Clouds, Chemistry and Climate, Nato ASI Series 35. Springer:Berlin, 260pp. abstract postscript pdf

Held, I. M. , Pierrehumbert, R. T. , Garner, S.T. and Swanson, K.L. 1995: Surface quasi-geostrophic dynamics. J. Fluid Mech 282, 1-20.

Vainshtein, S. I Sreenivasan, K.R., Pierrehumbert, R. T. , Kashyap, V., and Juneja, A. 1994: Scaling exponents for turbulence and other random processes and their relationships with multifractal structure. Phys. Rev. E50, 1823-1835.

Swanson, K. and Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1995: Potential Vorticity Homogenization and Stationary Waves. J. Atmos. Sci 52, 990 - 994.

Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1995: Thermostats, Radiator Fins, and the Local Runaway Greenhouse. J. Atmos. Sci. 52, 1784-1806. pdf

Pierrehumbert, R.T. and K.L Swanson 1995: Baroclinic Instability Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 27, 419-467.

Yang, H. and Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1994: Production of dry air by isentropic mixing. J. Atmos. Sci. 51, 3437-3454.

Pierrehumbert, R. T., Held, I.M. and Swanson, K. 1994: Spectra of local and nonlocal two dimensional turbulence. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 4, 1111-1116 pdf.

Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1994: On tracer microstructure in the large-eddy dominated regime. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 4, 1091-1110. pdf See also commentary on experimental work confirming the prediction of strange eigenmodes.

Swanson, K. and Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1994: Nonlinear wave packet evolution on a baroclinically unstable jet. J. Atmos. Sci 51, 384 - 396.

Pierrehumbert, R. T. and Yang, H. 1993: Global chaotic mixing on isentropic surfaces. J. Atmos. Sci 50, 2462-2480.

Lin, S-J. and .................................... 1992: Is the mid-latitude zonal flow absolutely unstable? J. Atmos. Sci 50, 505 - 517.

Lamb, K. and .................................... 1992: Steady state nonlinear internal gravity wave critical levels satisfying an upper radiation boundary condition. J. Fluid Mech. 238, 371-404.

Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1992: Spectra of tracer distributions: A geometric approach. in Nonlinear phenomena in atmospheres and oceans, R. Pierrehumbert and G. Carnevale, eds. Springer-Verlag:New York 229pp.

Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1991: Chaotic mixing of tracers and vorticity by modulated travelling Rossby waves. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid. Dyn. 58, 285-320. pdf

Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1991: Large scale horizontal mixing in planetary atmospheres. Phys. Fluids A, 3,1250-1260.

Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1991: Dimensions of Atmospheric Variability. in Beyond Belief:Randomness, Prediction and Explanation in Science. J. L. Casti and A. Karlqvist, eds. CRC Press:Boston, 110-142.

Carissimo, B.C., ...................................., and H.L. Pham 1988: An estimate of mountain drag during ALPEX for comparison with numerical models. J. Atmos. Sci 45, 1949-1960.


Bacmeister, J. T. and .................................... 1988: On high drag states of nonlinear stratified flow over obstacles. J. Atmos. Sci 45, 63 - 80.

.................................... 1987: An essay on the parameterization of orographic gravity wave drag. in Observation, theory and modelling of orographic effects. European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecasting: Reading, England 1987.

Lin, S-J and .................................... 1988: Does Ekman friction suppress baroclinic instability? J. Atmos. Sci 45, 2920-2933.

Lin, S-J and .................................... 1987: Absolute and convective instability of stratified shear flow. in Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on stratified flow, Caltech 1987 . Elsevier

.................................... and J. Bacmeister 1987: On the realizability of Long's Model solutions for nonlinear stratified flow over obstacles. in Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on stratified flow, Caltech 1987 . Elsevier.

Lin, S-J and .................................... 1987: Comment on "Richardson criteria for stratified vortex motions under gravity" Phys. Fluids 30 1231-1232.


Panetta, R.L., I. Held and ................................ 1988: External Rossby waves in the 2-layer model. J. Atmos. Sci 44, 2924-2933.

............................... 1986: A universal shortwave instability of two-dimensional eddies in an inviscid fluid. Phys Rev Letters 57, 2157-2159.

............................... 1986: Spatially amplifying modes of the Charney baroclinic instability problem. J. Fluid Mech., 170, 293-317.

................................. 1986: Remarks on a paper by Aref and Flinchem. J. Fluid Mech. , 163,21-26.

Held, I., ................................, and R. L. Panetta 1986: Dissipative destabilization of external Rossby waves. J. Atmos. Sci., 43,388-396.

1985: The effect of local baroclinic instability on zonal inhomogeneities of vorticity and temperature. Adv. Geophysics, 29, 165-182.

1985: A theoretical model of orographically modified cyclogenesis. J. Atmos. Sci., 42, 1244-1258.

1986: Lee cyclogenesis. Chapter 13 of Mesoscale Meteorology and Forecasting, P. Ray ed. American Meteorological Society: Boston.

Held, I., R. L. Panetta and 1985: Stationary external Rossby waves in vertical shear. J. Atmos. Sci.,42, 865-883.

Pierrehumbert RT, and B. Wyman 1985: Upstream effects of mesoscale mountains. J. Atmos. Sci., 42,977-1003.

Pierrehumbert RT 1985: Stratified semigeostrophic flow over two dimensional topography in an unbounded atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci., 42, 523-526.

Pierrehumbert RT 1985: Orographic distortion of fronts. Revista di Meteorologia Aeronautica, Anno 44, #1234.


Pierrehumbert RT 1985: Formation of shear layers upstream of the Alps. Revista di Meteorologia Aeronautica, Anno 44, #1234.


Pierrehumbert RT 1984: Local and global baroclinic instability of a zonally varying flow. J. Atmos. Sci. 41, 2141-2162.

Pierrehumbert RT 1984: Linear results on the barrier effects of mesoscale mountains. J. Atmos. Sci. 41, 1356-1367.

Pierrehumbert RT , and P. Malguzzi 1984: Forced coherent structures and local multiple equilibria in a barotropic atmosphere. J. Atmos. Sci. 41, 246-257.

Pierrehumbert RT 1983: Bounds on the growth of perturbations to non-parallel steady flow ont he barotropic beta plane. J. Atmos. Sci. 40, 1207-1217.

Reinhold, B. B. and Pierrehumbert RT 1982: Dynamics of weather regimes: Quasi-stationary waves and blocking. Mon. Wea. Rev. 110, 1105-1145.

Pierrehumbert RT , and S. E. Widnall 1982: The two and three dimensional instabilities of a spatially periodic free shear layer. J. Fluid Mech. 114, 59-82.


Pierrehumbert RT , and S. E. Widnall 1981: The structure of organized vortices in a free shear layer. J. Fluid Mech. 102, 301-313.

Pierrehumbert RT 1980: The Structure and Stability of Large Vortices in an Inviscid Flow. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Pierrehumbert, R. T. 1980: A family of steady, translating vortex pairs with distributed vorticity. J. Fluid Mech. 99, 129-144.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Long Term on 09/04/2012 16:39:05 MDT Print View

Nice to be back to chaff after a few days of hiking : )


"In reality, the 'residence time' of co2 in the atmosphere is less than 10 years."

Maybe it takes 10 years for a plant to ingest CO2, but that's just the biological cycle that recycles the same CO2.

It takes 1000s of years for CO2 to be removed from this biological cycle - to turn into carbonate shells and be deposited under silt, or plants to be buried by volcanic ash (or whatever) and eventually get converted to oil and coal.

One mechanism is for calcium to be washed out of rocks and carried to the ocean, where sea creatures combine it with CO2 to form carbonate shells which eventually settle to the bottom and get covered by other marine sediment.

This is a good example of how you distort facts to match your agenda.


"Any change we've seen so far is insignificant...

In reality, there is plenty of evidence that you are not correct."

In the Scientific American I referenced and another one a year or so ago they talk about two "recent" events. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago and there was another one 100 million years ago. Those are the two events they know of that had increase atmospheric CO2 like we're doing today.

In those cases, the data is obscure because it was so long ago, but it took 100s and 1000s of years to see the effect.

Right now we've seen a tiny increase in temperature which you can argue is within natural variation.


It's like a hurricane is coming. We've seen the first bit of a shower from the first rain band. Rog is arguing "No, this is just a normal shower, don't worry, no hurricane is coming". We don't really know how big the hurricane is going to be or where or when its going to be the worst.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Global temperature update and winter warning on 09/06/2012 13:45:52 MDT Print View

This month's update shows little change - but, things are happening in the deep.

uah-aug12

The air temperature is being maintained by the loss of ocean heat content. The 'Pacific Warm Pool' is an enormous body of sub-surface water which is key to explaining el Nino events. It doesn't appear in the surface record until winds driving the surface waters above it away force it to the surface, the heat then spreads and whooshes up into the atmosphere and we see a spike in temperature like we did in 1998 and to a lesser extent in 2010.

It was thought that the warm pool was building nincely and that we'd get an el Nino this year. However, the warm pool has melted away since April and there's little left of it. The graph below shows the four months since then covering the equatorial Pacific ocean down to a depth of 400 Meters

subsurface BOM 2012 - 8

This indicates that we will get a colder drier northern hemisphere winter. Expect very cold conditions at northerly latitudes. I doubt we'll see much of a third dose of La Nina though, my educated guess is for ENSO neutral conditions extending into next year. Brrr.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/06/2012 13:53:01 MDT.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
squash on 09/09/2012 21:35:53 MDT Print View

Here is that article from 1999 I have been meaning to post a link to. The theme is a shrinking atmosphere due to longwave radiation get trapped because of increased Greenhouse Gases;

http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/100/stratos-cooling.htm

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Failed alarmist predictions on 09/10/2012 09:38:17 MDT Print View

Thanks for posting a thirteen year old article Dan. It gives us the opportunity to test the predictions for the following decade and a half derived from the models used by this vociferous climate scientist.

Shindell predicts that the Arctic vortex will become more like its southern cousin in the next few years.

FAIL. (It didn't)

By 2020, he says, the Arctic lower stratosphere will be 8 degrees C to 10 degrees C colder than it would have been without the greenhouse effect.

FAIL (it's around the '79'2008 average this year)

.arctic start temp 11-12

Edit to add: You can check out this and previous years at various altitudes and latitudes here
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/

As a result, ozone loss will be double what it would have been, and the repair of the ozone layer as the world reduces emissions of ozone-eating gases will be delayed.

FAIL (global ozone is up since 1996)
http://oi48.tinypic.com/ftjxcj.jpg


While chlorine levels are expected to peak in the stratosphere within the next five years, Shindell says that ozone loss over the Arctic will continue to rise for a further 10 or 15 years. To add a frisson to those who live in the North, Shindell's model runs predict that over Greenland and northern Europe more ozone will be destroyed than anywhere within the Antarctic ozone hole"

FAIL (it turned out their calcs were wrong, see http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html )

Edited by tallbloke on 09/10/2012 09:51:30 MDT.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
shrinking on 09/10/2012 11:56:38 MDT Print View

I posted the story for the general information of stratospheric coolong leading to atmospheric shrinking and not for each specific prediction. People always make predictions and of course they are not ALL always correct or precisely accurate. It is also instructive in just showing how the warming below can lead to strange feedbacks. Here's more below. I'm not posting this JUST for you Rog but for the general audience, so don't get your panties in a wad;

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

Edited by wildlife on 09/10/2012 12:06:54 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Meanwhile in Antarctica on 09/10/2012 12:26:32 MDT Print View

Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David

Abstract:

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

By the way Dan, through the most delicious irony, Jay Zwally was the guy who, around the time Drew SHindell was warbling his worries about Arctic stratospheric temperatures, predicted that all Arctic ice would disappear by the end of summer 2012.

I reckon he has around 7 days left for the last THREE AND A HALF MILLION square kilometers to vanish.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: shrinking on 09/10/2012 12:51:21 MDT Print View

Dan says:
"I posted the story for the general information of stratospheric coolong leading to atmospheric shrinking"

You posted some 13 year old junk from the 'New Scientist' which has proven to be the complete rubbish we always said it was. The Stratosphere hasn't been cooling for many years, as the NOAA's data tells us.

And the reason it hasn't been cooling for many years, is because the Sun controls its temperature, via the atmospheric changes it drives, not because of changing co2 levels.

As usual, and as I pointed out a fortnight ago, these stories always omit the actual data you need to know to put the claims of the alarmists in perspective. NASA found that the thermosphere shrunk by 30% since the Sun went quiet in 2004. Through the same period, lower stratospheric temps have stabilised, and lower tropospheric temps have fallen slightly.

Edit to add: Meanwhile, co2 levels continue their steady upward plod, which implies that they have little to do with the ups and downs of other climate indicators.

If our estimates are correct, we'll likely see co2 rise levelling off in response to the flat temps of the last 15 years in around another 15 years time.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/10/2012 13:47:14 MDT.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
record low on 09/10/2012 13:55:50 MDT Print View

Rog said,

"By the way Dan, through the most delicious irony, Jay Zwally was the guy who, around the time Drew SHindell was warbling his worries about Arctic stratospheric temperatures, predicted that all Arctic ice would disappear by the end of summer 2012."

This is your way of hiding the FACT that the Arctic Ice Extent this year is at an all time low and continues to go lower, exceeding a diminishing trend, not to mention the Arctic Ice volume which is more difficult to measure which is also at a record low. You have a nice way of ignoring and hiding the truth of a matter.

What is going on in the Arctic is an illusion that there is still much ice left at all when the thickness that has diminished is also considered. It's a matter of time and it is all melting faster than most have predicted. It certainly goes against your claims of a cooling atmosphere and ocean.

As for Antarctica, your friend Judith Curry has shown that more moisture in the atmosphere can give Antarctica more snow even while things are warming in general. It's cold enough down there for temps to rise but still make snow of course, all the while the oceans are warming.

I also posted the 13 year old 'junk story' because it is thought provoking and an interesting read, and the information about the atmosphere shrinking is true. There's quite a bit of info about that, even data about the average height of clouds being about 1% lower.

Edited by wildlife on 09/10/2012 14:17:35 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: record low on 09/10/2012 16:45:30 MDT Print View

Dan Says:
It certainly goes against your claims of a cooling atmosphere and ocean.

The data shows that the atmosphere and ocean are cooling - GLOBALLY.
This doesn't mean that some areas might not still be anomalously warm as the excess heat shuffles round the system before escaping to space. The excess ocean heat content built up over 75 years in the C20th, and it won't all disappear overnight.

more moisture in the atmosphere can give Antarctica more snow even while things are warming in general.

The data says most of Antarctica is cooling, not warming.

But of course, in the AGW theory co2 causes global warming, and global cooling, and indeed global saminess.

It is the ultimate in unfalsifiable junk science.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Stratospheric cooling again on 09/11/2012 01:43:42 MDT Print View

It was overly simplistic of me to say the Sun controls stratospheric temperature. It's true over the long term, but there is another important factor on the decadal scale - volcanos.

Here's the UAH satellite measurement of lower stratospheric temperature from the start of the satellite age, with the big stratosphere penetrating eruption of el Chichon and Pinatubo picked out to reveal the downward step changes in stratospheric temperature they caused

.lower strat UAH volc

The warmista claimed it was co2 that caused the drop in temperature, so lets take a look at the rate of change of co2 levels against the temperature record to see if the two volcanoes caused a huge spike in co2.

.co2 roc vs uah

As you can see, they didn't. In fact, co2 rate of change falls dramatically around the time of Pinatubo, indicating that the source of extra airborne co2 over the last 50 years is temperature dependent (generally good correlation of the two series) and locally very temperature dependent, big extra natural emissions from volcanic soils due to reduced cloud cover, temporarily reduced by the dimming effect of sulphates and cloud seeding particles from the eruption.

This observation strengthens the case for arguing that most of the rise in co2 over the last 50 years is natural in origin, rather then due to human emission.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
poppycock on 09/11/2012 11:47:44 MDT Print View

You are the Poppycock Master!

Rog actually said, "This observation strengthens the case for arguing that most of the rise in co2 over the last 50 years is natural in origin, rather then due to human emission.'

Human emissions have super-exceeded anything nature can put out and that is causing much positive feedback like fires, melting tundra, etc. We're kind of lucky at this point that the oceans have been able to hold and absorb what they do. So, Rog, it sounds like you are saying the added CO2 is affecting something - like holding in your 20C heating?

There is no question that Humans are acting far outside the 'carbon balance'. That's why you Rog are looking so hard for the source of the added CO2. It's not really a mystery to non-misinformers. You are ridiculous. There is no question about the science when it comes to how humans are affecting the atmosphere and that they have taken the Parts Per Million of CO2 from 280 in pre industrial times to 400 and this is with much of the co2 going into the oceans! Humans have absolutely affected the biosphere in a major way. Only somebody like you Rog, and absolute misinformationist with no quibbles about misleading his fellow Man could question how we have changed things. You are so off the mark you could not lecture to 4 year olds.

Edited by wildlife on 09/11/2012 12:12:09 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: poppycock on 09/12/2012 00:56:30 MDT Print View

Keep your hair on Dan, I'm just following where the data leads me. According to the literature, we can't tell what was responsible for the increase in co2 because equally valid models can be built which result in opposite conclusions. For example see Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005). Hence my comment that "it strengthens the argument that...", not that "we can conclude that..."

However, since those papers were written, we now have data from the AIRS satellite, and it makes interesting viewing. This shows where co2 is being emitted and absorbed in July 2008

.AIRS

There are a number of observations to be made here:

All the highest concentrations are downwind of warm water.

The Mediterranean gets very warm in summer so you can see the plume across the Middle East, a sparsely populated desert area with little co2 emission of its own.

Australia gets CO2 from the ocean between it and South Africa.

South America gets CO2 from the Pacific upwind.

Western USA from the Pacific, upwind.

Southern Asia gets CO2 from the Indian Ocean, upwind.

There is a plume of CO2 downwind of the warm Gulf of Mexico.
and so on.

There is little or no significant excess CO2 above or downwind of major population centres such as Western Europe or the North Eastern USA.

The relatively low CO2 quantities above the equator are due to the clouds and rain of the Intertropical Convergence Zone.

The two main bands of higher CO2 concentration are under the subtropical high pressure systems in each hemisphere where most sunshine gets into the oceans to warm the sea surfaces.

Science moves on. We have to take account of new data with which we can re-visit old theories.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
scale on 09/12/2012 12:15:42 MDT Print View

That diagram can be misleading to some. Based on the scale, the concentrations are pretty uniform across the globe. What is your point exactly? Thanks though, it's quite important for the layman to realize how readily CO2 can come back out of the ocean. The diagram looks much like the NASA heat video. I'll dig that up and post here. Thanks for keeping your pants on by the way! It seems like rather than the data carrying you off, it is your interpretation of the data for others that carries you off. Here's that video/animation;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtY8DpA_XNE&feature=player_embedded

Edited by wildlife on 09/12/2012 12:19:37 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: scale on 09/13/2012 02:05:46 MDT Print View

Dan says:
Based on the scale, the concentrations are pretty uniform across the globe. What is your point exactly?

Concentrations are pretty uniform and this confirms that co2 is "a well mixed gas" globally. Which is problem for co2 driven climate theorists because the Northern hemisphere warmed much more than the southern hemisphere over the global warming period ~1975-2005.

it's quite important for the layman to realize how readily CO2 can come back out of the ocean.

Yes. The co2 flux operates rapidly between air and surface waters. Sunlit parts of the ocean will outgas co2 while adjacent cloud covered areas absorb it. However, due to the reduction in cloud over the period ~1960-1997, more will have outgassed than been absorbed. This will have made a significant contribution to the airborne increase.

There's a longer term effect too. Sunlit oceans evaporate water rapidly, and this concentrates the salt content in the surface water, making it denser than the water below. The evaporation also increases the partial pressure of co2 in the surface water and causes outgassing. Then it sinks, and displaces cooler, co2 richer water upwards from below. So the reduction in cloud cover will have speeded up the thermohaline overturning cycle, and this also inceases the airborne fraction of co2, while the expanding biomass tries to catch up and absorb it again.

In addition to the extra co2 released from volcagenc soils as empirically measured by Cardellini et al last year, this is a big part of the reason woody biomass has increased 7% globally over the last 25 years. Far more than the paltry 8Gt of human emissions could achieve. The natural increase in sources is vast in comparison. So is the natural increase in sinks.

So understanding the carbon cycle requires a comprehension of its dynamic nature. You can't just do simple accounting and say half the human emission got absorbed by new sink capacity and the other half accounts for all the increase in airborne co2. This simplistic accounting leads to a completely unrealistic view of the much bigger natural sources and sinks which ostly control the cycle.

The problem is, we have no good measurements of the biggest parts of the cycle, and this is why it is possible to build equally valid models which come to opposite conclusions, as the paper I cited above showed with six models. Three showed the increase was down to human emission and the other three showed it was natural.

Data from which you can conclude anything tells us nothing for sure.

However, the AIRS data helps us by adding better knowledge of where the sources and sinks are at the regional level, and that moves the conversation forwards. Hence the set of observations I added to the co2 map built from the AIRS data. There is much more work to do here before we can be sure about attributing the cause of the rise in co2 over the last 50 years since records began at Mauna Loa.

And the discovery that the rate of change of co2 (its first derivative) matches the temperature record closely suggests that the vast majority of the increase in the airborn fraction comes from sources that are dependent for their rate of emission on temperature. Human emission doesn't fit the profile. This is further backed up by the fact that changes in co2 levels always happen after the changes n temperature, never before.

Our current tentative estimate, for what it's worth, is that the increase in the airborne fraction is 5-10% from human emission and 90-95% natural, due to the increase in temperature. More work required to firm up the figures. If we're right, then if temperatures decline, we will see co2 levels start to fall in around 12-15 years time, due to the lag of around 25% of the cycle, so this is a useful test of our hypothesis. Sometimes in science, you just have to be patient. In a science where you have to wait for nature to get around to conducting your experiments for you, this is doubly true.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/13/2012 02:22:40 MDT.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
quantifried on 09/16/2012 13:29:13 MDT Print View

No that's not a typo.

Rog said, " Our current tentative estimate, for what it's worth, is that the increase in the airborne fraction is 5-10% from human emission and 90-95% natural, due to the increase in temperature. "

Rog, that is so untrue. The human emissions have been quantified and and without exaggerating - they are far far way beyond anything 'Nature' is throwing out. The temperature related forest die-offs and etc. from climate change are the positive 'natural' feedbacks you are speaking of and you even have that out of proportion to bolster your argument. What you have done correctly is adding in the phrase " for what it's worth ". Perhaps if you call the millions of oil wells pricking into the ancient stored carbon deposits, and the coal mining, something like 'natural' you could get away with your 'estimate'.

The way you try to hide reality is much more serious that what East Anglia meant by 'hiding the decline'. Your untruths, and East Anglia was exonerated, are 1,000 times worse than what you supposed they did.

Edited by wildlife on 09/16/2012 13:36:07 MDT.