Last Build Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 18:38:01 +0000
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 18:38:01 +0000Most papers I read on this show an increasing ESS value as globally averaged temps increase, with some indication of ESS values of > 8.0 during Eemian peak (see PALEOSENS paper 2013 doi:10.1038/nature11574 ). Since this temp reconstruction extends back to the mid-Pleistocene, it seems not appropriate to use LGM-derived ESS values as bookends. The Lake El'Gygytgyn temp recon shows +8C from todays values at 400 ppm CO2 (we are at 485 ppm CO2e now). Obviously, we are currently in transition and our global atmospheric cell structures are going to shift rapidly with broadly expanding Hadley cell and collapsing Arctic cell leading to meridional migration of average cloud cover and reduced albedo.
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 17:12:52 +0000Mack:
Even Digby Scorgie pulls you up ..”you mean TOA, not TOE, don’t you?”At least Mack can understand a spelling mistake if nothing else.
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:06:42 +0000Jim Eager @117, I think Mack's response will show you that enlightening him is absolutely impossible. Despite numerous people from all sides (including some of his fellow cranks at PSI) trying to educate him, he still does not understand the concept of a spherical earth and its impact on incoming solar radiation.
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:02:14 +0000Mack @123. The substance of your comment is presented down a link to a comment you wrote in a Principia Scientific comment thread. Why the link? Why not simply cut-&-paste any content of that comment you wish to relay here? Are you in some way proud of the gob-shite you wrote in that Principia Scientific comment? Or are you worried that the appearance of such gob-shite in this thread would end up in the Borehole? Principia Scientific are a bunch of fantasists. It appears that that descriptor extends to the denizens of their comments' threads. The substance of the gob-shite you link to @123 was that the TOA incoming solar radiation is, you say, 1360w/sq.m. Are you serious? And if it were (although it isn't as this is globally averaged values being presented), why would that result in 342w/sq.m incoming solar radiation absorbed by the surface? Note that I ask these questions solely because I am intrigued by the constructs of the delusional mind.
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:22:46 +0000Mack, is that all you've got, a simple typo? The link to your same ignorant assertion elsewhere makes it perfectly clear, thanks. Geometry and trigonometry are simply beyond your ability to comprehend, you are utterly impervious to reason and logic, and too dim to be embarrassed by it, much less do something about it.
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:36:51 +0000@257 Alfred Jones, Actually just the opposite. I identified a minor gap in what is available to farmers right now in regenerative systems and my research is designed to provide one way to fill that minor gap. Since I have yet to prove my research, the only rational conclusion would be to say my research is not better but worse. I am striving to fill that gap with something that is better, but it would be arrogant to claim I am sure to succeed where so many others have come up slightly short. That's why for now I don't advocate my own methods I am developing yet. They are still being developed. I am still learning. This is very different than the systems I do advocate, all of which are well vetted by others. The vast majority of food and fiber produced world wide is produced in an unsustainable manner, but those well vetted methods can be dropped in to reverse that at almost any scale for rice, corn, small grains, meat and dairy, and fruit. There are a few things that have defied scaling up to large commercial farms, but by far the vast majority of farmers world wide do already have well vetted alternatives available to convert their unsustainable farms to more profitable regenerative farms. In so doing this, they would sequester huge quantities of CO2 per hectare. This is because universal to all these regenerative methods is restoring soil health means increasing soil carbon content using biology. That is universal because life on this planet is carbon based, and increasing soil life is increasing carbon, and many millions of years of evolution of terrestrial life have developed into biological systems that create soil beneficial for that life. All we have to do as agriculturists is mimic those biological systems, and soil carbon increases universally in all cases. If we as agriculturists are failing to increase soil carbon content yearly (and most are) then we are not mimicking those evolved biological systems. The trick of course is to do it in a way that increases soil carbon at an accelerated rate just as we produce yields of food and fiber at an accelerated rate. Sure enough there are well vetted examples of farmers doing just that exact thing at every scale farm.
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:25:28 +0000@Thomas, #254 " A clear majority of Humans, over +200,000 years now, are not even close to being as smart as they believe they are. re +200,000 years now, a new paper is coming out soon based on dna sampling etc." It’s not about smartness, it’s about integrity. The vast global majority lives in poverty without any political/economic power. No power, no responsibiliy. Where the money/power is, there is the responsibility for the mess we are in.
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:59:44 +0000The GAST reconstruction has surprisingly small uncertainties (2-sigma range of +-1.8C at the LGM). The two obvious contributors to the uncertainty are the structural biases in the proxies and the sampling error from estimating GAST from 5-61 SST observations. Structural bias uncertainty estimate comes from three independent proxy types, each with a 2-sigma of 3C, so the 2-sigma on the mean is about +-1.7C. Sampling error is hard to estimate, but eyeballing extended data figure 5 suggests that in the PMIP simulations it's enough to increase 2-sigma from about +-2.5C to about +-5C - that's about +-4C Combining in quadrature suggests a 2-sigma uncertainty of +-4.4C for the LGM uncertainty, which doesn't seem ridiculous for a reconstruction based only on SST proxies - bigger than the AR5 estimate of +-2.5C, but that estimate is based on much more data. How do we get an uncertainty of +-1.8C - where is the precision coming from?
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:49:21 +0000Jim Eager @117 Your revisitation of comment #97 to better address incoming solar energy at the TOA...with.."Perhaps it will help Mack to finally see the light,as it were."..seems to have got you into an even more confused state, Jim. Even Digby Scorgie pulls you up .."you mean TOA, not TOE, don't you?" I hope to clarify and enlighten this issue for you , if the moderators will allow my comments, here... http://principia-scientific.org/is-no-greenhouse-effect-possible-from-the-way-that-ipcc-define-it/#comment-11469
Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:09:29 +0000
Jeff, thanks for dropping by. Just a clarification (I know you know this, but not all our readers will!): the fact that the ocean was colder during glacial periods by itself explains only about 10% of the CO2 change. Dynamical, biological and chemical changes that go *along* with the temperature change are required to explain the bulk of the changes in CO2. –ericI didn't know that, and find it quite interesting. What are the other (proposed?) feedbacks? And what levels of uncertainty attach to the various contributions? Pointers, perhaps, to some lit on this?