[cherdano]

 Daniel1960, on 2017-July-10, 09:50, said:

High climate sensitivies are derived by high feedback factors. In the absence of high feedbacks, the climate sensitivity is much lower. The following paper gives a brief, but complicated analyses:

https://www.ma.utexa.../c/11/11-16.pdf

"Complicated", but obviously non-sense.

[cherdano]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-07, 05:07, said:

Very early on I naively looked up the greenhouse effect for CO2 and was shocked to find out how negligible it is once the proportion of gas gets above a certain level.

Can you quantify this? Can you provide a reference?

[Zelandakh]

 cherdano, on 2017-July-10, 10:14, said:

"Complicated", but obviously non-sense.

Here is another one in the same style from the same author. I think he is a physicist because I found a number of papers under the name in that general area. Exactly why he tried to transfer from neutron stars to climate is unclear but I could not find anything more recent than the 2011 paper linked by Daniel so it would seem likely that the switch was unsuccessful.

[cherdano]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-10, 10:45, said:

Here is another one in the same style from the same author. I think he is a physicist because I found a number of papers under the name in that general area. Exactly why he tried to transfer from neutron stars to climate is unclear but I could not find anything more recent than the 2011 paper linked by Daniel so it would seem likely that the switch was unsuccessful.

Lol:

Quote

. But, if the temperature of black body is infnite,
the Kirchhoff law, on which the Schwarzschild equation is based, has not been found. Surprisingly,
climate scientists have ignored this inconsistency until Weaver and Ramanathan
[11] have resolved the problem in 1995.

I think he should change careers and start proving that pi is rational. Would be just as beneficial, but there would be fewer idiots being misled by what he does.

[mike777]

posters continue to ignore....as well as most people that solar will continue to make huge...fast gains in market share regarding electrical generation.

I fully grant these gains in energy and medicine rely in innovation when it comes to nano

[Daniel1960]

 cherdano, on 2017-July-10, 10:14, said:

"Complicated", but obviously non-sense.

The only nonsense is those who refuse to understand the physics and mechanisms involved. Granted, he took some liberties in mixing clouds in with water vapor. Clouds have a very different affect, which is not uniform. Many differing climate sensitivity calculations stem from whether the cloud feedback is a net positive or negative. To quote Joni Mitchell, "we really don't know clouds at all."

http://www.nature.co...l/ngeo2398.html

[Al_U_Card]

This just in: Continued low solar activity will tend to encourage formation of a blocking high over Greenland. This, in turn, affects the flow of the jet stream leading to much colder winters in Europe.

Maybe some of those "future" climate refugees would be kind enough to send you some global warming?

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-July-11, 16:03, said:

This just in: Continued low solar activity will tend to encourage formation of a blocking high over Greenland. This, in turn, affects the flow of the jet stream leading to much colder winters in Europe.

This paper? Or did you have another in mind?

One additional event linked with low solar activity is the Greenland ice sheet melting more quickly due to warm water being diverted in that direction. Presumably you would encourage that as providing more habitable land for people to live and grow food on... Shame about the land in other parts of the world falling under the resulting sea-level increase.

[Daniel1960]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-12, 11:10, said:

This paper? Or did you have another in mind?

One additional event linked with low solar activity is the Greenland ice sheet melting more quickly due to warm water being diverted in that direction. Presumably you would encourage that as providing more habitable land for people to live and grow food on... Shame about the land in other parts of the world falling under the resulting sea-level increase.

It seems as if scientists are conflicted as to the cause of the changes in Greenland. Last year, phys.org published an article in which it claims that increased clouds is raising the temperature in Grrenland by 2-3C, resulting in accelerated melt.

https://phys.org/new...eet-cloudy.html

Then last month, the same site publishes an article stating that a marked decrease in clouds is responsible for the temperature rise and accelerated melt.

https://phys.org/new...enland-ice.html

I wonder what they will say has been responsible for the stark increase in Greenland's ice mass this year.

http://www.dmi.dk/en...ce-mass-budget/

[Winstonm]

https://www.washingt...m=.c2d1be31bbb6

Quote

Scientists announced Wednesday that a much anticipated break at the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica has occurred, unleashing a massive iceberg that is more than 2,200 square miles in area and weighs a trillion tons.

In other words, the iceberg — among the largest in recorded history to splinter off the Antarctic continent — is close to the size of Delaware and consists of almost four times as much ice as the fast melting ice sheet of Greenland loses in a year. It is expected to be given the name “A68” soon, scientists said.

“Its volume is twice that of Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes,” wrote researchers with Project MIDAS, a research group at Swansea and Aberystwyth Universities in Wales that has been monitoring the situation closely by satellite

[Zelandakh]

 Daniel1960, on 2017-July-12, 11:54, said:

clouds in Grrenland

Did they really need studies to show that we get warm days and cold nights with low cloud cover and cool days and warm nights with high cover? I have known that since I was about 10 years old!

 Daniel1960, on 2017-July-12, 11:54, said:

I wonder what they will say has been responsible for the stark increase in Greenland's ice mass this year.

Do you happen to know the cardinality of the NAO? That would seem to be a good place to start.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-12, 11:10, said:

This paper? Or did you have another in mind?

One additional event linked with low solar activity is the Greenland ice sheet melting more quickly due to warm water being diverted in that direction. Presumably you would encourage that as providing more habitable land for people to live and grow food on... Shame about the land in other parts of the world falling under the resulting sea-level increase.

Rather than knocking down straw-men, how many millennia will it take to melt that Greenland ice? (Recall that it did not melt during the previous interglacial which was warmer than this one has been...to date.) Al Gore's seaside digs are in no danger....inconveniently truthful

[Daniel1960]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-12, 16:32, said:

Did they really need studies to show that we get warm days and cold nights with low cloud cover and cool days and warm nights with high cover? I have known that since I was about 10 years old!


Do you happen to know the cardinality of the NAO? That would seem to be a good place to start.

Zel,

Yes. Prior to the IPCC, the general thinking among scientists was that Greenland melt was due to the NAO alone. Recently, a new batch of scientists are claiming all sorts of other issues as controlling factors. It appears that these newcomers are either unaware of past research or diminish their conclusions.

[RedSpawn]

https://www.usatoday...tica/102637874/

How much is natural continental drift and how much could be man-made?

Ok, I guess a few of the answers are here:

http://digg.com/2017...space-explained

Hmmmm

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-July-12, 20:13, said:

how many millennia will it take to melt that Greenland ice?

All of the ice sheet? I would guess a very, very long time. Enough of the ice sheet to cause us serious issues? Well that is one o the key questions - certainly considerably less time than for Answer 1.

 Daniel1960, on 2017-July-13, 06:03, said:

Yes. Prior to the IPCC, the general thinking among scientists was that Greenland melt was due to the NAO alone. Recently, a new batch of scientists are claiming all sorts of other issues as controlling factors. It appears that these newcomers are either unaware of past research or diminish their conclusions.

The papers I have read generally acknowledge a strong correlation between the NAO, blocking events and Northern European weather and are rather looking either at additional factors or at consequences of or explanations for the NAO effects. The warm water causing faster melt is also not really new as far as my recollection goes. I seem to remember reading about this mechanism in a paper from around 10 years ago, though my memory is hazy on the details. The idea of the NAO being an E-W displacement of blocking events is something new to me though. As far as the NAO correlation itself goes though, there has not been any new information rejecting this as far as I know. There have been attempts to tying it in with other natural variability, such as with the stadium wave hypothesis as well as the postulated relationship with solar activity. Unfortunately sites like RC tend pretty much to ignore things like the NAO, regarding it simply as weather rather than having any potential influence on decadal climate variability. Perhaps that will change if we are still having this thread in 10 years time, when the wave is due to turn "hot" again.

[Zelandakh]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-July-13, 09:40, said:

How much is natural continental drift and how much could be man-made?

It is actually impossible to answers questions like this posed about a specific event. All one can say is that a warmer climate makes the chances of such events occurring greater and that when they do occur they more likely to be more serious. To ascribe a certain amount of the ice to nature and the rest to manmade causes is just missing the point.

[Daniel1960]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-13, 09:45, said:

It is actually impossible to answers questions like this posed about a specific event. All one can say is that a warmer climate makes the chances of such events occurring greater and that when they do occur they more likely to be more serious. To ascribe a certain amount of the ice to nature and the rest to manmade causes is just missing the point.

With these types of events, and others than occur so infrequently, we cannot say whether the chances of such events have changed at all.

https://www.scientif...ak-really-mean/

[mike777]

Interesting article on solar energy from LA Times

California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it

http://www.latimes.c...ctricity-solar/

----------------


I have mentioned the possibility of energy costs falling in the future, of energy costs something close to zero. Here is an example, granted a very small example, of energy costs falling to below zero. In this case Calif was paying other states to take its excess energy.


As a side note the article talks about the sun not shining or clouds blocking the sun.
The good news is that the sun is always, always shining, yes even at night and that photons can pass through clouds. Granted there are continuing issues that advances in nanotechnology will need to solve to continue market share to grow.

[Daniel1960]

 mike777, on 2017-July-14, 06:54, said:

Interesting article on solar energy from LA Times

California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it

http://www.latimes.c...ctricity-solar/

----------------


I have mentioned the possibility of energy costs falling in the future, of energy costs something close to zero. Here is an example, granted a very small example, of energy costs falling to below zero. In this case Calif was paying other states to take its excess energy.


As a side note the article talks about the sun not shining or clouds blocking the sun.
The good news is that the sun is always, always shining, yes even at night and that photons can pass through clouds. Granted there are continuing issues that advances in nanotechnology will need to solve to continue market share to grow.

Mike,
The energy costs did not fall to below zero. The costs to the residents of Arizona was below zero, but the cost to California was higher than usualy, such that the net cost was positive. You cannot get something for nothing. Sure, the sun is always shining. But when the solar panels are pointed away from the sun, towards the night sky, they receieve precious light energy. We still have big issues generating power through clouds and at night.

[mike777]

 Daniel1960, on 2017-July-14, 09:03, said:

Mike,
The energy costs did not fall to below zero. The costs to the residents of Arizona was below zero, but the cost to California was higher than usualy, such that the net cost was positive. You cannot get something for nothing. Sure, the sun is always shining. But when the solar panels are pointed away from the sun, towards the night sky, they receieve precious light energy. We still have big issues generating power through clouds and at night.

agree Daniel.

I thought the article gave a glimpse of the future, a future of possibilities. I remain hopeful.