by Judith Curry
It’s your turn to introduce topics for discussion.
Twitter
Tweets by curryjaSearch
Denizens
Recent comments
- Rob Starkey on Experiment with me: A user-friendly algorithm for chatting about climate change
- jim2 on CLINTEL’s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6
- joe the non climate scientist on Experiment with me: A user-friendly algorithm for chatting about climate change
- Rob Starkey on Experiment with me: A user-friendly algorithm for chatting about climate change
- Rob Starkey on Experiment with me: A user-friendly algorithm for chatting about climate change
- J. Ewing on Experiment with me: A user-friendly algorithm for chatting about climate change
- Dietrich Hoecht on Experiment with me: A user-friendly algorithm for chatting about climate change
- Jonathan Cohler on Experiment with me: A user-friendly algorithm for chatting about climate change
- UK-Weather Lass on CLINTEL’s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6
- Christos Vournas on Experiment with me: A user-friendly algorithm for chatting about climate change
-
Recent Posts
- Experiment with me: A user-friendly algorithm for chatting about climate change
- CLINTEL’s critical evaluation of the IPCC AR6
- Fauci, Fear, Balance and the Grid
- Silence of the Grid Experts
- How the Disinformation Industrial Complex is destroying trust in science
- Is warming accelerating in the troposphere?
- Renewable Experts: Undeterred and Unmoved by Failed Ideas
- Is the Antarctic-driven abyssal ocean overturning doomed in 2050?
- The Earth’s Green Future is Forked
- UN’s climate panic is more politics than science
- Senate Budget Committee Hearing: JC responds
- Emissions and CO2 Concentration: An Evidence Based Approach
- Senate Budget Committee Hearing Today
- Senate Budget Committee Hearing
- Australian renewable energy transition. Part 3
Categories
Blogroll
- A chemist in Langley
- AndThenTheresPhysics
- Bill Hooke
- Cliff Mass
- Climate Audit
- Clive Best
- Ed Hawkins
- HeterodoxAcademy
- Kahn: Environmental & Urban Economics
- Paul Homewood
- Pragmatic Environmentalist
- Saravanan: MetaModel
- Science of Doom
- The Ethical Skeptic
- Watts Up With That?
- WoodForTrees
- Wx & Climate @ Reading
Archives
Email Subscription
Join 5,030 other subscribersMeta
Imagine we are ten years later in 2023 and we draw an extension of D. Roy Spencer’s temperature profile ten years into the future. Suppose it (a) goes down, (b) stays flat, (c) goes up a little, or (d) goes up a lot. Suppose we compare with the Nino index or other factors. What should we conclude from these observations? What are we looking for over the next ten years?
Donald, you ask “What are we looking for over the next ten years?”
I dont think anyone has the slightest idea. No-one understands what causes natural variaitons in the earth’s climate sufficiently well to make any sort of accurate prediction. I know what I would like to happen, but that is of no help whatsoever.
However, what we can conclude with reasonable certainty, is that whatever happens, it will be like a Sword of Damocles hanging over the warmists. Unless global temperatures start to rise rapidly in that time period, I suspect there will be very few politicians in positions of real power who will be willing to fund CAGW any more.
But let me quote Herman Kahn, from the Hudson Institute, again. “Nothing would be more surprising, than that nothing surprising is going to happen”.
After successfully hiding the Sun’s source of energy for sixty-seven years, mankind must finally admit that he is totally powerless over the forces of Nature.
That is reality, and acceptance of reality is sanity.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Creator_Destroyer_Sustainer_of_Life.pdf
The ocean might do its own thing, but the land should continue to rise 0.3 C per decade as it has done quietly for the last three, and the summer sea-ice should be gone by then.
Jim D.
Ocean and land are closely connected via the flow of energy between them. Taken as a complete system (including cryosphere, biosphere, and lithosphere) the Earth system will very likely continue to accumulate energy over the next 10 years as it has for the past 30 or 40 or more. GH gases never sleep.
Really and truly sad.
The ocean slow-down does not seem to have moderated the land warming in the last decade, so while I agree they are coupled, the land may be freer to warm directly in response to forcing than many think. The land and Arctic are providing outlet valves for the accumulating heat by warming themselves, even as the ocean surface doesn’t respond much.
Jim D.,
It would help me if you defined your terms more closely. When you say “land” are you talking about lithosphere or troposphere 2m off the ground?
Yes we know the cryosphere globally has been declining through taking in some of the accumulating energy, and the Arctic permafrost is part of this. The Arctic troposphere has also been warming, but this has very low thermal inertia and is not a place the excess energy is being stored directly, but indirectly in the higher humidity in the region and thus the thermal, latent, and gravitational potential energy this represents.
R. Gates, by land I mean land surface temperature that governs part of the Planck response to the forcing change. The land surface is contributing to the Planck response even if the ocean surface hasn’t been recently. For a dF there is a dT (Planck response) and a dH/dt (storage). The energy imbalance is the extent to which the dT isn’t keeping up with the dF, which is going in to the storage (mostly OHC).
Donald,
Based on the past 30 to 40 year trend, and the continual accumulation of GH gases, the total energy of the Earth system should continue to rise over the next decade. There is no physical reason it will stop or reverse. See my post below. Natural variability may move the energy from one part of the system to another or change its form, but as long as GH gases continue to accumulate, so will energy.
Arctic sea ice extent decline is very much following parallel to the average line. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
The expedition to row through the NW passage this year seems to be having a lot of trouble.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
All in all, I am resonably hopeful that this year’s melt will be significantly less than last year’s, and we will have a minimum extent area well above 4 msk.
Sorry, the second reference should be
http://mainstreamlastfirst.com/?slide=home
Jim Cripwell | July 27, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
Huh. And I look at the data you show in detail, and see the past 30 days represents the fastest one month decline in sea ice extent in the Arctic in the NSIDC records.
They’ve had to invent a whole new term to describe the state of Arctic Sea ice, “decayed ice”, below the low end of their former scale.
When you say you’re “reasonably hopeful”, how is that reasonable, again?
Did you _read_ what NSIDC says in its analyses?
Because they say the opposite of what you claim.
And the expedition to row through the Arctic Sea along the NW passage (http://www.vancouversun.com/lastfirst/index.html for their blog, for those with a fascination with that sort of thing) isn’t the only venture having trouble with the atypical distribution of decayed ice. Last year, Shell had to abandon its drilling efforts fruitlessly, too. Oh, and what’s the biggest holdback for the rowers?
“Thereâs no question a smaller vessel like a kayak would fare far better in such wind with less weight and less wind hindering movement but with a smaller vessel comes the disadvantages of limited carrying capacity and sea worthiness.”
Their boat is too big.
Less Arctic Sea ice doesn’t equal safer Arctic. It equals unleashed Arctic.
When the former Arctic cyclones happened over stable ice, they were one thing: over decayed ice that they chew up like so much soft porridge and open water?
That’s a whole new brand of maelstrom.
Bart, you write “Did you _read_ what NSIDC says in its analyses?”
The latest NSIDC analysis is dated 17th July, which is 10 days ago. The rate of loss of Arctic sea ice exrent in the last 30 days, to 26 July is nowhere near the fastest on record. It is roughly average since records began
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent at record levels.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/4th-daily-record-in-5-days-for-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/
Jim Cripwell | July 27, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
Could you point to another year with a 30 day drop for this date exceeding 2013’s?
2007 has the biggest 15 day drop
2007 179 to 194 -2.08497 million sq km
and the biggest 40 day drop
2007 178 to 218 -4.48215
and the biggest 33 day drop
2007 174 to 207 -3.85051
But no year has more Antarctic Ice Extent on this day …
If you change to % the largest 30 day percentage drop was:
2007 Day 178 to 208
Drop -3.60088
% -34.66
2013 is 2nd in terms of percentage over 30 days
2013 day 173 to 203
drop -3.65737
% -32.75
For 15 day drop percentages, 2013 is 4th behind: 2012 , 2007 and 2011.
sunshinehours1 | July 27, 2013 at 8:31 pm |
Yeah, yeah. 30 days. For the same date.
You cherry picked near dates, and went with percentage rather than absolute.
But sure, 2nd to the remarkable 2007 drop is fine, too.
And thanks for confirming the surge of Antarctic continental ice sloughed off the shoulders of the continent to spill onto the sea in ever increasing and ever-thinning extent to melt away in the southern oceans.
“the surge of Antarctic continental ice sloughed off the shoulders of the continent to spill onto the sea”
Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You joker Bart.
“Out of 366 possible daily records in the Antarctic, only 7 were set before 2000”
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/5th-daily-record-in-6-days-for-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/
As for the 30 day thing, I didn’t cherry pick anything. The code I used was written a long time ago and it just searches the biggest drop in any X day period.
Bart R: âthe surge of Antarctic continental ice sloughed off the shoulders of the continent to spill onto the seaâ
What happened to the âthe surge of Greenland and Canadian/Russian continental ice sloughed off the shoulders of the continent to spill onto the seaâ?
sunshinehours1 | July 28, 2013 at 10:46 am |
The poor cherrypicker blames his tools.
You pretended to invalidate a claim.
You instead supported it despite your best efforts to obfuscate.
sunshinehours1 | July 28, 2013 at 11:32 am |
What happened to the âthe surge of Greenland and Canadian/Russian continental ice sloughed off the shoulders of the continent to spill onto the seaâ?
It melted in the past 30 days. But not to worry, more’s sloughing off all the time, at an increasing pace. That’s still melting faster every summer than it plus the oceanic-origin ice builds up all year long.
sunshinehours1 | July 28, 2013 at 10:46 am |
By the way, could we see the code?
Maybe have access to the running application?
Sounds awfully selfish to hoard something like that just to yourself.
I think you two may be talking at cross-purposes: Sunshinehours1 is sharing with us stories he has read in the paper, while Bart is referring to something completely different.
For Sunshinehours1’s benefit, here is what Bart is talking about:
http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/velicogna/files/slide2.jpg
David Mitchell sums it up (h/t HuffPost).
http://www.upworthy.com/the-difference-between-global-warming-skeptics-and-normal-people
Nice argument when applied to almost any subject.
Those people who don’t believe a planet killing asteroid is on the way should not object to us spending 100 trillion on a planetary defensive laser system.
The CRU seems to see the pause, you have to ask
1. What caused the rise 1910-1940?
2. What caused the drop/pause 1940-1980?
3. what caused the pause since approx 2000?
I guess that increased CO2 having enhanced the greenhouse effect, causing an imbalance in the Earth’s energy received/reradiated, and thus an accumulation of heat on Earth has failed to eliminate underlying variability.
Now, if you can just point us to which model predicts such heat accumulation would elminate variability, we can throw that model out.
So…where is it?
Opps missed the link
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
As a Skeptic it’s my charge to look for evidence that would refute or alter all things that I hold to be provisionally true. This is the only way that my scientific understanding is able to evolve. Some of you here might have important data or studies that could assist me in altering or even abandoning my current “Warmist” perspective. Specifically, here is the general perspective I hold to be provisionally true:
Adding anthropogenic GH gases to the atmosphere increases the total energy content of the Earth system by slowing the rate at which energy flows from Earth to space (i.e. more energy enters the Earth system than leaves). This additional energy may be stored in any form (latent, thermal, biological, kinetic, etc.) in any part of the Earth system (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere). Based on the best current data we have, the total energy of the Earth system, summed across all spheres, has been steadily increasing for at least the past 30 to 40 years without pause, and closely paralleling the growth in Anthropogenic GH gases over this period.
Now, if anyone has data that refutes or contradicts any of this, please pass it my way!
R gates
It seems to have been getting warmer-in fits and starts- for 350 years. Prior to that it was cold and prior to that warm.
Bearing in mind these oscillations it is very difficult to see mans hand in the current warming, which is by no means global. The best documented country in the world has been cooling for a decade
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb
Hi Tony,
Always good to hear from you!
Yes, the Earth system “may” have been accumulating energy for the past 350 years, but one measurement of one part of that system (and not even the largest part) is not enough to know, so we can’t (or at least I can’t) make that assumption. Certainly there has been warming of parts of the system from the depths of the LIA, but unfortunately, CO2 and other GH gases begin to accumulate at about the same time the LIA was fading from the beginnings of the industrial revolution, so it becomes rather difficult to even isolate natural variability from anthropogenic forcing even in measuring one part of the system over the past century at least. Anthropogenic factors brought CO2 from 275 to 300 ppm by about 1900. should we assuming this forcing was zero?
R. Gates aka skeptical warmist: Anthropogenic factors brought CO2 from 275 to 300 ppm by about 1900. should we assuming this forcing was zero?
It is a reasonable hypothesis. The current collection of data and models do not permit a reasonable conclusion, in my opinion. Now that we have had 15 years of almost no warming with a much higher CO2 concentration, it looks quite reasonable to think that the change from 275 to 300 might have had zero effect.
Matthew M.,
Your brain seems to be stuck in the troposphere in terms of your thinking about energy in the Earth system. The troposphere has extremely low thermal inertia compared to the rest of the system. Why would you base your conclusion about long-term energy accumulation in a system from its lowest thermal inertia portion? Makes no sense.
Matthew R Marler,
See, the problem is that the global surface air temperature was the cause for concern about catastrophic global warming only when the reported temperature trends showed marked increases. Now that they do not, we have to look to areas of the climate that we don’t even measure so we can maintain the momentum toward ever greater government…I mean ever better science.
Now, if we should actually start taking temperature measurements of the deep sea where we claim the “heat” is “hiding,” and it is not there, don’t worry, we will find another way to justify our continuing energy jihad.
As the Prophet Hansen, may peace be upon Him, has said, global warming isn’t just catastrophic, it’s going to be “apocalyptic.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html?_r=0
Besides, we gotta get paid.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist,
the troposphere has the most reliably measured temperatures. . You can see the trend in temperature over the last 17 years here:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
If the whole earth system is accumulating energy, as you said, why would the lowest thermal inertia portion of the system show a steadily decreasing temperature? If you can look at these data and still believe that the earth system is still steadily accumulating energy, then you are a believer, not a skeptic.
You wrote the following: Based on the best current data we have, the total energy of the Earth system, summed across all spheres, has been steadily increasing for at least the past 30 to 40 years without pause, and closely paralleling the growth in Anthropogenic GH gases over this period.
Tell us where, in those thousands of pages that you read, the accumulated knowledge predicted that there would soon be a 17 year period of steady or reduced temperatures in the troposphere. This 17 year period is about half of the “past 30 to 40 years without pause” that you mentioned, and is the half most pertinent to your syntax: “has been steadily increasing … without pause.”, and “current data”.
The 17 year span was identified as the minimum length of data to detect at a statistically significant level a change from a previous regime. The other temperature series are not very dissimilar, showing no or little increase in mean sea surface temp, etc, in the best “current” data: the last 10 – 17 years. If this keeps up for 5 – 10 more years, which naturally is not known right now, the case against the standard theory will be unequivocal.
R gates
Getting warmer for 350 years and now a noticeable dip
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
Merely a hiatus or have we reached the logarithmic limits?
IF the warming is going into the oceans I think you said it would take a thousand years to raise the abyssal temperature by even fractions of a degree
Tonyb
Above I wrote:
“Now, if we should actually start taking temperature measurements of the deep sea where we claim the âheatâ is âhiding,â and it is not there, donât worry, we will find another way to justify our continuing energy jihad.”
R. Gates has gracefully proved me correct, now arguing that the “missing heat” is hiding in the grass, on this very thread.
TonyB can not even reason properly without completely muddling his argument
He wrote this
” It seems to have been getting warmer-in fits and starts- for 350 years. Prior to that it was cold and prior to that warm.”
So it has been getting warmer for longer than 350 years?
Please stay away from technical subjects.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html
Seriously webster – add something useful or consider yourself an inconsequential twit. The temperature record technical? You’re an idiot with bells on.
David W.,
Nothing in my statement precludes natural variability from moving energy around in the system or other external forcings (solar, volcanic) from adding to or taking energy out of the Earth system. Show me the data that would indicate one of these, rather than the forcing from additional GH gases, was adding energy to the system over the past 30 to 40 years.
R. Gates, 30 to 40 years is such a short period how about a couple thousand years?
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/07/still-following-energy.html
Remember the first rule of parsimonious reasoning is, “where did we screw up?”
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist Adding anthropogenic GH gases to the atmosphere increases the total energy content of the Earth system by slowing the rate at which energy flows from Earth to space (i.e. more energy enters the Earth system than leaves). This additional energy may be stored in any form (latent, thermal, biological, kinetic, etc.) in any part of the Earth system (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, lithosphere). Based on the best current data we have, the total energy of the Earth system, summed across all spheres, has been steadily increasing for at least the past 30 to 40 years without pause, and closely paralleling the growth in Anthropogenic GH gases over this period.
The idea that the total energy … has been steadily increasing for at least 30-40 years is based on models. The last 15 years worth of data (and some competing models) cast doubt on the “increasing” part of your assertion, though the phrase “steadily increasing” allows some wiggle room for a believer to retain belief. “Closely paralleling” the increase in AGHGs over the last 15 years is clearly not true, unless you allow a loose definition of “closely”. Analyses of rates of change have shown that the rate of warming has been almost uncorrelated with AGHGs over the last 100+ years; whereas the rate of change of CO2 correlates highly with .earth temperature (one of the nice presentations of those relationships was in a talk by Prof Murray Salby, which I think was linked here recently.) Correlations do not tell you which interventions will work, but those two correlations are the opposite of what the AGHGs theory predict.
The idea that adding anthropogenic GHGs to the earth atmosphere will slow the rate at which energy flows from the earth ignores the non-radiative processes via which the energy is transported through the system. Most importantly, it ignores the transfer of latent energy from the ocean and land surfaces to the upper troposphere via convection and phase changes; it also ignores the possibility that increased transport of water vapor might increase cloud cover and reduce the input of short-wave radiation to the surface. Increased GHG concentrations are predicted to increase total water in the atmosphere, and may increase the rate of transport of the latent energy from the surface to the upper troposphere.
I think that you mischaracterise “skeptic”. A skeptic is a skeptic ab initio and remains a skeptic until a theory has been substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt. What you describe is a believer checking for reasons to abandon belief.
Taking a 60-year running average to filter the PDO, you get an accelerating rise in global surface temperature, somewhat like the CO2 rise. This is a strong indicator of where the main forcing is coming from on long times scales.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:720/plot/best/mean:720
R. Gates,
Imagine you light a small candle in winter, inside a medieval castle. Are you heating the castle? Sure. Is the crowd very happy? No, they don’t notice the heat. So, “heating”, without quantifying, does not have much meaning.
Plazame,
Oceans down to 2000m have been adding roughly 1 x 10^22 Joules per year over the past 10 years, and about 0.5 x 10 ^22 Joules per year over the past 40 (yes, there does appear to be some acceleration in the storage to the oceans). Added to this is the energy the cryosphere has added from the melting of ice. Added to this is the energy the biosphere has added from the additional biomass. This biomass expansion is a fairly new discovery, and is exciting in a of itself. See:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract;jsessionid=DACBD1BD9E71E340FE6A63DE7F7F47F1.d03t04
I am not sure if any of the climate models take this “greening” into consideration, but they ought to.
Plazaeme
As it was much warmer in medieval times the castle would not have needed heating in the first place, would it? :)
Tonyb
Ocean heat content follows net TOA flux – which is overwhelmingly cloud radiatve forcing.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=127
The last 10 years have all been cloud radiative forcing as well.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=48
It is what the data says.
Interesting point RG. That increase in greening, if correct, constitutes an increase in what is referred to as embedded energy. This is energy in addition to what is observed as thermal energy increase.
Because of conservation of energy principles, should the greening decompose, the embedded energy would be released as heat.
How much is this increase in embedded energy as a proportion that goes into OHC and other warming? Any at all strengthens the AGW argument.
See how the preponderance of evidence works?
R.Gates.
Thanks. The question is, how does it compare with the models which cause the alarm? And, I wouldn’t put much faith in the pre-Argo data, for obvious reasons.
Any case, most of climate change scientists, have a theory and models. Some part of the theory has good grounds, but the part that makes it alarming, not at all. And, “science” does not have much meaning. (Just as “heating” without quantifying). You need some critic on knowledge to get an idea about where you are. Normally, difficult predictions come true is the best and most simple way to check. But a consensus is not a way to check a knowledge, and has never been.
R. Gates
You have just stated that you are a “skeptic”.
And then you have demonstrated exactly what it is that you are “skeptical” about: namely, anything that contradicts or questions the premise that
You have cited “correlation”, but have not addressed “causation”.
You state that the global temperature has been “steadily increasing” (limiting this to “the past 30 to 40 years:) but you have not addressed the fact that the global warming has occurred in multidecadal fits and spurts of warming and slight cooling of around 30 years each with an underlying trend of slight warming (ever since we have emerged from a naturally caused past period of colder weather, the LIA), while the “growth in Anthropogenic GH gases” has occurred in a steady exponential trend.
As a true “skeptic”, these factors lead me to be “skeptical” of a robust statistical correlation between GH gases (CO2) and global temperature; and where there is no robust statistical correlation, the argument for causation is weak.
Max
Whatâs missing is the most momentous 21st century climate event. The 1998/2001 climate shift.
âFigure 3. Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.â It is before ARGO as well.
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
“Based on the best current data we have, the total energy of the Earth system, summed across all spheres, has been steadily increasing for at least the past 30 to 40 years without pause, and closely paralleling the growth in Anthropogenic GH gases over this period.”
No data, but a correction.
Your claim that the “total energy of the Earth, summed across all spheres, has been steadily increasing for at least the past 30 to 40 years without pause, and closely paralleling the growth in Anthropogenic GH gases over this period” is based on on “the best current data we have,” but on the best computer generated models you warmists have.
Models that don’t include measurements of vast areas of the “spheres” of the climate (deep sea, much of Antarctica, etc.); models that don’t properly account for water vapor or clouds (because you warmists don’t understand them yet – certainly not enough to model them); models that only have the most unreliable data from beyond 10 years ago for large areas of those “spheres;” and models that can’t forecast the date 10 years from now, let alone the temperature. (OK, that’s a bit of exaggeration, but not much.)
Here’s the deal. First, you warmists actually come up with real data that support your claim, or get at least one of your myriad, expensive, ineffectual computer models to function in a way that generates some level of confidence. Then you can start to demand that others come up with contrary data.
This was in reply to R.Gates, the Dogmatic Warmist, immediately above.
You made the comment and I asked you what YOU were referring to.
No, I was responding to this comment from you:
“…the largest portions of the Earth system we are currently measuring…”
Oceans by heat content and sea level rise, cryosphere by total mass, and biosphere by total area all would indicate a steady to accelerating accumulation of energy in the Earth system.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
You don’t mean actual data measuring temps at all. Good. I didn’t think so.
So where do I go to see the reported annual heat content of the Earth climate system as a whole based on “sea level rise, cryosphere by total mass, and biosphere by total area?” And what is the level of precision of the “calculation” of that “data?”
Can we tell the average total heat content of the oceans within tenths of a degree based on sea level rise and sparss sea surface measurements? How do we calculate the release of heat into the atmosphere by melting ice, apart from existing tropospheric measurements? And where are the calculations with such precision on the average annual addition to the heat content of biomass?
This is why warmists are so obscurantist. Once you get them to say what they really mean, you see how weak their argument is.
Thanks for playing.
Gary,
You apparently need to be spoon fed, or perhaps this is just a game you played like when you mama fed you outmeal as a baby, and asked you to “open up little Gary and let the airplane fly in…”
You can look up the ocean heat content data and data for the decline in global ice youself. I’ve given it to others many times, but feel no reason to carry on the tradition of your mama for such a rude little Gary.
RG, a lawyer such as Gary shouldn’t be expected to know how to do math-based physics such as calculating energy imbalances.
That’s what makes these discussions so entertaining… The deniers are pathetically outgunned when it comes to scientific proficiency.
Never ask a warmist for their “data,” particularly when they don’t have any, except model generated “data.” Ahh the precision of sea level, ice extent and biomass as a measure of global heat content is legendary…in their own minds.
Gary asked:(his words, his question)
“How do we calculate the release of heat into the atmosphere by melting ice, apart from existing tropospheric measurements?”
——
Now, I hope (and am pretty sure) that most everyone else can see the error of Gary’s reasoning here. I mean, this is fairly elementary thermodynamics isn’t it?
So, just to set Gary on a better path (and maybe he’ll pull himself away from his beloved Faux News long enough to read this):
When ice melts it does not release heat into the atmosphere but rather energy flows from atmosphere (or surrounding water) to ice. Thus, when snowflakes or ice FORM, there is an actual release of energy from the water molecules to the atmosphere. You’ve got your flow of energy bass ackwards Gary. Again, turn off Faux News and crack the Thermo 101 book!
Gary,
I need more than your opinion. Give me data to refute the thousands of pages of research I’ve read. If you don’t understand what the basic research is telling us, how can we speak intelligently or have you refute that research intelligently?
Dear Dogmatist,
Just because your Polemics 101 assistant professor told you to always try to set the terms of the debate, does not mean everyone who engages with you will allow you to do so.
I showed your statement was false, in claiming that you relied on “current data,” when you were relying on “current model;ed data,” which you now transform into “thousands of pages of research.”
How do I know that you are not relying on data? How do I now that you warmists don’t measure vast swaths of the climate system, can’t model water vapor and clouds? How do I know your models can’t forecast/predict/project worth a damn? Because other, more honest, warmists admit all of the above.
So no, until you correct the false premise at the center of your question, I see no need to respond to modeled assumptions with real world data.
How did you miss the thousands of pages on natural variability? In that regard here is some interesting data:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/the_real_climate_drivers_ocean_and_solar_cycles_amplified_by_levels_of_volc/
David W.,
See my reply above.
Gary,
Your inability to supply actual data that shows the Earth system has not been accumulating energy over the past 30 or 40 years is disappointing, but not surprising.
R Gates aka Skeptical Warmist Give me data to refute the thousands of pages of research Iâve read.
Surely you don’t believe everything you have read. Start with: at the highest concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere ever recorded, the earth mean temperature is hardly increasing at all. The earth is warming much less than the models predicted, models that also were based on thousands of pages of research. If the models are accurate embodiments of the claimed knowledge, then the claimed knowledge is unbelievable right now.
“Your inability to supply actual data that shows the Earth system has not been accumulating energy over the past 30 or 40 years is disappointing, but not surprising.”
Not disappointing at all. Only one of us is claiming to have data regarding the amount of energy allegedly accumulated over the last 30 or 40 years. I say there is no such actual data, because other warmists admit that is the case.
Your inability to offer such data just proves that i was correct in saying you had stated a false premise. And I am not disappointed in your inability to do so at all either. I already knew you couldn’t.
You should also not be disappointed that i do not point to a model that shows CAGW is political polemic, not science. I do not cite to such a model, or propose such a model, because I do not believe the climate can be modeled at all. Certainly not at our present minimal state of knowledge, and perhaps not ever. Not to the extent claimed by Chicken Littles like yourself.
Gary M. said:
“I say there is no such actual data, because other warmists admit that is the case.”
—
You do realize how illogical this is, don’t you?
The very best data we have that includes the largest portions of the Earth system we are currently measuring strongly indicates the continual accumulation of energy in the Earth system over the past 30 or 40 years. No credible “warmists” are dating this data does not exist. It’s been recorded by satellites and direct measurements of the ocean and cryosphere and biosphere and atmosphere.
You are simply spouting off Gary. Do you want to learn science and honest skepticism?
R. Gates,
You keep trying to change the subject. Now you want to claim that data regarding surface air temps and sea surface temps are the basis for your claim that the Earth’s climate is retaining energy in lock step with CO2 emissions. (I’ll leave aside for now the myriad problems with those adjusted, kriged, “data” records.)
Which would call into question why everyone from Trenberth to Schmidt to the Met Office is discussing why the temp records do not comport with the models. How can there be “missing heat” if we have accurate data? Why are so many climate scientists getting nervous about climate sensitivity, if we have all this data you purport to be basing your question on?
You want to claim isolated measurements of temps of parts of the global climate as a measurement of the total heat content of the climate system. That is not science. That is voodoo. That’s like taking the temperature of my living room for the last year, and trying to tell me how much heat my house has been retaining for the last 30-40 years, without even sticking a thermometer in the basement or attic.
You can’t measure the difference between the actual amount of energy into the system and the actual energy out, because the difference is too small to be measured by any instrumentation now available. (I know this because that unquestionably objective scientific site Skeptical Science tells me so.) So you have no “data” regarding “retained heat,” only assumptions.
Get back to me when your “science” has advanced to the level where you can even gather such data.
Matthew,
Models are always wrong. Why would I base what I believe to be true on them? Makes no sense. Models may point towards discovery of something more than we know now, but they are never “true” in and of themselves.
“The very best data we have that includes the largest portions of the Earth system we are currently measuring….”
“The largest portions of the Earth system we are currently measuring?”
This belongs on the obscurantist thread.
We aren’t measuring the largest portion of the Earth system by heat content, which is the issue. We are measuring the largest portion by area, which is irrelevant.
Climate “science” at its “best.”
Gary,
I never mentioned models in my original post, nor do my Warmist leanings depend on the models. I don’t care what Trenberth or anyone is doing to match reality with their models. Basic fundamental physics drives the climate. It is complex system built from basics. Increase GH gases and basic physics says more energy will be retained by the system, and that’s what the Earth system, taken in total, has been doing. If Trenberth or others say the energy should be in one part of the system or another based on their (not my) models, but it’s not there, maybe they should tweak their models. For just one example, which climate models accounts for the accumulating energy in the greening biosphere?
Gary said:
“We are measuring the largest portion by area, which is irrelevant.”
What are you referring to?
R. Gates,
What are you referring to? I tried to read your comment to make sense, and the only way it does is if you are referring to the atmosphere, which is larger by area than the oceans, but has much less heat content and capacity to hold heat.
I would point out here that Trenberth is a data person not a model person. He holds models accountable to the data, and is just as critical as anyone when the models can’t follow the data. The idea that all the major AGW scientists are modelers is wrong.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist: Why would I base what I believe to be true on [models]?
I don’t know why. That is a question about you.
The CO2 whose accumulation is accumulating mostly in the troposphere is the mechanism by which you propose the whole rest of the earth is accumulating energy. It is curious that the mechanism can warm up the whole rest of the earth without warming up its surroundings. That idea must be based on a mechanism that excludes kinetic energy transfer via collisions.
One place the earth system is accumulating energy is in plant matter: sugar, cellulose, and all the other high energy chemicals that plants create. The rate of this storage has been increased by atmospheric CO2 accumulation in the regions where lack of CO2 has been the rate-limiting factor.
Matthew Marler, the GHG mechanism is that the infra-red heat loss from the earth is decreased by adding GHGs. This is why heat accumulates in the system, at least until the earth surface warms enough to restore the balance at the top.
Jim D, my response to you got posted below.
“The jet stream, which strongly influences weather at mid-latitudes, is driven by temperature differences between the Arctic and the equator, a difference that shrinks with the sea ice.”
Summer cyclone chewing up Canada’s Arctic sea ice
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/summer-cyclone-chewing-up-canada-s-arctic-sea-ice-1.1383454#ixzz2a7rqCHnY
Some of the “missing heat” definitely found in the biosphere.
As the Earth system continues to accumulate energy, the search has been on to find where all of this energy is being stored. The Ocean of course, as the major heat sink of the planet is one place, and we know some has been melting the cryosphere, but some amount has also been found in the expanding biosphere:
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-greening-of-the-planet.aspx
This might or might not be reason to take some of the “C” out of those of you who might be CAGW’s, but it is at least is worth noting.
Greening is a positive feedback. It darkens the albedo as vegetation spreads into the deserts and Arctic tundra. However, this is a very slow process. Paleoclimate sensitivity appears higher than 3 C per doubling partially because of high-latitude forests in the warmer periods.
You are definitely correct on the positive feedback and greening. As long as there remains the constant external forcing of the Human Carbon Volcano, the more energy accumulated in the system, the more that will be accumulated. Hence, it seems very likely we are headed to new Pliocene-like conditions.
Oh do give it a break!
Tell me, which gets hotter on a hot summer afternoon?
The beach?
Or the green lawn next to the beach?
Phatboy,
You probably should be asking which absorbs more Long Term energy– the sandy beach or the green lawn? Truly of course it is the lawn, and in fact, you drive your gasoline car because of Long Term solar energy stored millions of years ago by a “green lawn” somewhere. You sure don’t drive it from energy that fell on a beach next to that lawn.
Gatesy,
So that makes the lawn a positive feedback, does it?
Think a bit before you write.
phatboy, the temperature you feel of a surface is more related to its conductivity than how much energy it has absorbed. You need to understand albedo more.
Jim D, so what absorbs the energy?
The lawn?
Or the earth underneath?
And what proportion of the energy is converted into heat, and what proportion is almost immediately lost from the lawn through evaporation?
Phatboy,
You could learn if you’d open your mind. Far more long-term energy is retained by green living things than the empty sand. And it is green living things and animals that have shaped the climate for millions of years.
Also, regarding positive feedback and the greening of the Arctic, see:
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/03/the-greening-of-the-arctic-is-underway/
phatboy, you might know that dark surfaces reflect less, therefore absorb more, sunlight. However a combination of its heat capacity and conductivity make it harder to warm, even with more energy coming in than sand. The water is darker and colder than the sand too, for similar reasons. It actually absorbs more heat, however.
Gatesy, do not patronise me.
The energy absorbed by vegetation is locked away – it does not contribute to surface warming.
OK, this is just getting silly.
First, grass is not cooler than sand on a sunny day because it is storing heat rather than re-emitting it. Ever heard of evaporation? Walk on dried out grass on a sand dune, you won’t find much comfort.
And grass storing heat “long term?” If by long term you mean the life span of a blade of grass, I guess.
I take it someone has decided that “biomass” is the new pipeline in which the missing heat is being stored pending Thermageddon?
Jim D, it absorbs more energy – which however does not lead to a commensurate increase in surface temperature – and so in turn not contributing to more atmospheric warming nor an increase in Planck response.
The energy stored in and cycled through the biosphere is a huge part of Earth’s climate system. This this so basic that I find it sad to see it even questioned here. Energy stored in the biosphere can be locked up for minutes or millions of years.
R.Gates, the Gullible Warmist,
And where precisely did you find the measurements of the change in heat content of Earth’s biomass over the last 30-40 years, within tenths of a degree of course, to support your claim of a lock step rise in climate heat content with CO2 emissions?
Gatesy, only in your fevered imagination is anyone questioning that.
phatboy, I can tell that you are not an engineer or scientist as you don’t understand the concepts of heat storage or energy conservation. I don’t hold it against you. I am sure a lot of the skeptics are artists and politicians, etc. Do you suppose the sand or the grass get colder at night, or how about the water? This is storage, and some gets released later, some goes into deeper layers. Overall more energy in is more energy out for any surface, but time scales may vary. Some surfaces are more like storage heaters.
Jim D, why don’t we just cut down the rainforests then and turn them into deserts?
Answer me one question: which warms the atmosphere more on average over a 24-hour period – the lawn or the sand? And which radiates the most energy on average, given the fourth-power relationship?
I guess for completeness, I should mention evaporation would also keep the grass surface cooler than the sand, but that is just heat loss by a different route.
The main benefit of rainforests is that they remove CO2 and add O2. Their albedo does not help for sure, but on balance they are better than sand. Allowing evaporation also keeps the land surface cooler than it might be otherwise, so the way forests retain moisture over longer periods than sand is a good thing too.
Jim D, I’ve already mentioned the evaporation in this thread.
And the bit about the rainforests was meant as sarcasm, in case you missed it.
I’m still battling to see where your positive feedback bit fits in.
Rainforest do not have significant net effect on the amount of CO2 or O2. They don not reduce CO2 or add O2 except when their total biomass increases or when the succeed in adding carbon to soil. Under normal conditions rain forest don’t do either, and are therefore approximately carbon neutral (and O2 neutral).
Clearing of rain forests has an obvious effect and reforesting a previously cleared area the opposite one.
Pekka, you are right. I was referring to the effect of removing rainforests which likely would add a CO2 source due to decay or burning, the way the addition of forests sequesters carbon into the new biomass and soil. True, forests by themselves are neutral to carbon.
Part of the CO2 released from human activities is taken by growth of biomass. That’s a significant factor in slowing down the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. In that the biomass transfers also some energy to chemical energy, but this is not a particularly important effect. It’s a fraction of the energy released when fossil fuels are burned, essentially the same fraction as the removal of CO2 by biomass growth is from the anthropogenic releases.
The average power of biomass formation is of the order of 0.002 % of solar radiation at TOA.
phatboy, the positive feedback from greening is from lower albedo. Lower albedo means more sunlight is absorbed and less reflected to space. The albedo is part of what determines the 255 K mean radiative temperature of the earth to space. Its long-term average is a control knob for climate temperatures. Decreasing the albedo from 0.3 to 0.29 raises this temperature to 256 K which would warm the atmosphere.
The main reason for the relative coolness of a lawn must, indeed, be in evaporation. Evaporation removes heat from the point of evaporation but does not remove it from the Earth system as the heat is released somewhere again when the additional water vapor condenses,
Another question is how long greening can go on in the changing climate. We could say that everything is fine as long as it does go on and have it’s positive feedback effect.
The location of the “greening of the earth”, or plant material is of course very important in terms of its net effect on the local climate. There is of course the well known “oasis effect”:
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Oasis_effect
But this doesn’t really address the general effect of a greener earth on the alteration of albedo, especially in more nothernly Arctic areas, where more planet materials (and plants that can begin to grow out of the snow cover earlier in spring) actually help to alter the general albedo and thus act as a positive feedback. For some very interesting research related to this, see:
http://www.livescience.com/28406-arctic-tundra-turning-green.html
But temperature is not the key issue, as the more important one is related to the storage of energy in greater amounts of biomass. This energy is energy that is “locked up” otherwise not immediately available for the other “spheres” on Earth, namely the troposphere, hydrosphere, cyrosphere, or lithosphere. When we burn fossil fuels we of course release what was once biomass energy millions of years ago.
Jim D, let Pekka explain it to you – he’s got more patience
phatboy, so far no one has disputed that greening lowers the albedo which is a positive feedback, just the way removing summer sea-ice is a positive feedback. I don’t see where the argument is. Might be interesting to see how much carbon can be sequestered by greening due to the new Arctic forests, because that would be a negative feedback.
Jim D, the lowering of albedo can only be be a positive feedback by increasing the surface temperature, leading to more atmospheric warming on average.
We shall see what effect Arctic forests have if and when they appear
phatboy said:
“Gatesy, do not patronise me.
The energy absorbed by vegetation is locked away â it does not contribute to surface warming.”
_____
With that comment phatboy, seems you might need a bit of patronizing. In nothernly regions where vegetation alters the local albedo, of course it contributes to surface warming. More net energy is captured by the Earth system when it is absorbed rather than reflected away. Remember, the biosphere is a part of Earth’s energy system.
Gatesy, within the context in which I replied, it referred to the proportion of energy which YOU hypothesised was stored in the biosphere – which, as Pekka explained, amounts to a tiny percentage of the insolation. And that tiny proportion which is stored cannot be described as a positive feedback to warming.
And with that, I must bid you goodnight
phatboy, you make the earth darker, it gets warmer because its heat comes from the sun. There are no two ways about it. The ice ages showed this in reverse.
R gates
Not sure what your point is on greening. The effect has been known for centuries. Reports in the 1920’s arctic confirmed greening in the far north compared to thirty years earlier.
In the archives of the Scott polar institute in Cambridge are records of greening in the far north of Russia and the subsequent establishment of trading towns. This was in conjunction with attempts to find a northern sea route to china.
3000 years ago there were towns in the far north of Alaska
Tonyb
Tonyb
tonyb, a lot of “skeptics” are clinging to greening as a good effect of CO2, but now you are ruining it for them by saying it happened before CO2. Own goal.
Tony,
What caused “greening” of the Arctic before and what is causing it now, might not be the same thing. Undoubtedly the Arctic was ice free during the Pliocene (the last time CO2 was at or near 400 ppm), and we also know from the Lake E data that there were trees in the Arctic then. The goal would be to find out why the Arctic greened anytime in the past, and see if it can teach us something about why it is greening now and what the longer-term effects might be.
Jim D, Only if all else – absorptivity, moisture content, thermal capacity etc remain the same – which they seldom if ever do. Otherwise it does not necessarily hold true.
And, as you originally said, it’s a very slow process – it hasn’t yet started happening to any significant extent.
PhattieBoy,
The green lawn will turn brown with more heat and less moisture and then will eventually have a similar albedo to the beach. Do you not comprehend long term effects?
Deniers have serious mental disconnects when it comes to conservation of energy arguments. The accumulated embedded energy of a greening lawn is a type of latent heat storage, until it starts decomposing, at which time it will release its latent heat.
Jimd
I can only report on facts as they present themselves. The periods I cited , around 1920, around 1525 and 3000 years ago are all well known periods of warmth. With warmth comes greening. It’s hardly an own goal to report on periods as warm as or warmer than today.
Tonyb
phatboy, no, albedo is a first-order effect on climate. It doesn’t depend on anything else to happen to change the forcing. It is like changing the solar strength. It matters in paleoclimate, but has not been invoked as a positive feedback for this century (yet) as far as I know. Some models have what is called dynamic vegetation that may include this effect, but equally the Amazon may die off. We don’t know the net greening.
Webfootinmouth, if I wanted your amazing level of insight into how grass dries I would have asked for it.
tonyb, so that leaves the question of whether the greening is from warmth or CO2 or both. It doesn’t seem to resolve anything. Do you know if CO2 was higher back then?
Jim D, I’m well aware of what albedo is – you appear to be misunderstanding what I’m saying.
phatboy, OK, good, now you can go back to my first statement on this sub-thread and see why you disagreed, because that is all I was saying.
Look, I’ve lost my patience with you – good night.
This is kind of ironic. With the models failing and the temperature pausing, suddenly the greening of the globe is an AGW minion topic. Never mind that 10% of the total surface of the Earth is currently “agricultural” land and close to 2% above latitude 45N has been put to the plow since the start of the industrial/agricultural revolution which the IPCC lists as a net cooling impact in spite of the albedo change, dust bowls, Sahel and Aralkum.
It is like the minions are on the verge of an epiphany but they just can’t get the bulb lit.
A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. A higher atmospheric CO2 concentration directly benefits the plant kingdom, land and sea, and derivatively, the animal kingdom, land and sea.
=============================================
PhattieBoy loses it and relies on Kim to rationalize why the warming that climate scientists predicted fits the deniers requirements for a world they wanted all along.
How convenient.
Here’s a skeptical analysis of what might be the latest scam, or could be something that, if its proponents’ claims hold up, could grow the economy while curtailing CO2E as if by magic.
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/2016620/biochar_a_cause_for_concern.html
I should note, there’s a world of difference between making charcoal and making ‘charged’ (composted) biochar, and the two have very different effects.
It is poorly studied as yet, but baby steps: http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/spectroscopy/2012/712837/
It is clear that climate scientists do not know if warming has stopped for a considerable time, or whether it has just paused, perhaps for a few months or even a few years.
The models are running too hot and the lack of warming for such a prolonged period was not expected.
The reasons for the lack of warming are not understood, but I assume them to be natural effects and it is entirely possible that some of the warming observed at the end of last century was due to natural factors as well. Natural factors seem to be more powerful than we were led to believe in the recent past.
The idea that the heat has chosen to change tactics and instead of raising the surface temperature it is now passing in some undetected manner into the depths of the ocean is at present no more than a suggestion.
If the above is a reasonable summary of the state of knowledge of AGW, then what should our scientists be telling our governments?
Should governments be reassured that warming will return with a vengeance and any delay in decarbonising everything will ensure disaster?
Given that the public is increasingly sceptical about AGW should the scientists admit that their models are flawed and it is time to reassess the science?
If the scientists bluff through this period hoping for imminent dramatic warming, do they not run the risk of further digging the hole that they are now in? If the government is persuaded to continue with expensive and useless energy policies and the planet then cools down, what then?
What does the responsible scientist do in this situation? The UK Met Office is in such a position. The three papers they published recently (which were widely regarded as spin) may give some indication of their thinking.
Your premise seems to be that GH gas forcing has taken a “pause”. Tropospheric temperatures are very poor indicators over the short-term of long term climate forcings. The Met office is a joke.
“The Met office is a joke.’
I wonder if you ever made this comment before the Met Office began backtracking (ever so slightly) from the alarmism you so ardently support? Got any previous comments from say a year or more ago, when they were still toeing the Warmist party line?
True believing progressive acolytes always believe that independent thought is a joke. That way they don’t have to think about it themselves.
Gentlemen and Ladies: My posting did not ask you to predict what the next ten years would look like. My posting postulated four possible empirical outcomes and asked you how you would interpret each of these, (I suppose particularly in terms of the adequacy of climate models). In other words, given ten more years of data, can we likely know a lot more than we do now? And what would we know? I, being of a mind that climate models are not very good, would rather hang my hat on empirical data. But how much data do we need?
Perhaps Spencer’s satellite won’t still be up in ten years, or he could be retired along with his methods, so it could be moot. Better to use a continuing record like surface measurements.
R. Gates, the Dogmatic Warmist, is making two mutually exclusive arguments on this site today. And I think his arguments are representative of the larger debate. (Which is not surprising, cognitive dissonance is the sine qua non of progressive thought.)
Argument 1: The 15 +/- year “pause” in global surface air and sea surface temps are no argument against CAGW because the total global heat content of the Earth’s climate system has been rising in lock step with anthro CO2 emissions for the past 30-40 years.
Argument 2: We know the heat content of the Earth’s climate system has been rising for the last 30-40 years, from the data we have from measuring the global surface air and sea surface temps.
Contradiction: (Do I really have to type it?) How can the data show a constant increase over a 30-40 year period, where the data show virtually no increase over the last 15?
Gary,
You seem to read far more into what I say than is there. Over the past 10 years it is absolutely true that the troposphere has not been warming. But generally, it has not been greatly cooling globally either, but seems rather to have leveled. More importantly, in terms of Earth’s energy balance is that the oceans and cryosphere have more than made up for the lack of warming in the troposphere, and very recent data seems to indicate the biosphere has well. The Earth, as a complete energy system continued to gain energy strongly over the past decade. Please give me data this is not true.
“The Earth, as a complete energy system continued to gain energy strongly over the past decade. Please give me data this is not true.”
You are back where you started. Asking for data to contradict your assumptions. Not going to happen. See above for why.
But I must say, your new claim that the missing heat is hiding in the grass, gave me a smile.
Mine is not an assumption but based on years of data. What you got?
R Gates aka Skeptical Warmist: More importantly, in terms of Earthâs energy balance is that the oceans and cryosphere have more than made up for the lack of warming in the troposphere, and very recent data seems to indicate the biosphere has well.
That is definitely something that you believe.
Yes I do Matthew, but provisionally so and not blindly so. The best available data says it is happening, but I’d love some data that says it is not.
Gary said:
“But I must say, your new claim that the missing heat is hiding in the grass, gave me a smile.”
____
Good you can smile Gary. Many folks who watch too much Faux News can’t.
I also think its “cute” that you think that energy is “hiding” in the grass. Does this make it easier for you to understand basic science? That’s makes me smile.
What is the sound of heat hiding in the grass?
=====================
For the sound of heat hiding under the grass, click on
Locusts are more like the bankers…
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cyprus-lenders-set-bank-cyprus-104408907.html
who want to hold onto their science; for all of US.
Max-OK,
No, that’s the sound of waiting for a straight answer to a simple question from a warmist.
Gary,
We could have an intelligent conversation perhaps if you knew something about science. Turn off your beloved Faux News and begin your schooling here:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/27/open-thread-weekend-26/#comment-354173
In a recent poll of youth on climate, 80% of voters under age 35 said they support the Presidentâs climate change agenda, and 73% say they are less likely to vote for someone who opposed these steps. Even 52% of young Republicans said they would be less likely to vote for someone who opposed the Presidentâs plan.
When asked how they would describe climate change deniers, most of those polled chose negative terms: 37% said âignorantâ, 29% said âout of touch,â and 7% said âcrazy.â
http://www.lcv.org/media/blog/lcv-releases-youth-poll-on.html
I too would describe the deniers as ignorant and out of touch. I also would use the following words to describe deniers: stale, archaic, over-the-hill, fuddy-duddy.
When asked what President Obama’s climate change agenda was, 100% of respondents said “Huh?”
GaryM thinks so much like Virginia AG and gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli that I suspect he may be Kenâs evil twin. Or maybe itâs the other way around, with Ken being the evil one..
I donât know if GaryM, like Ken, is a prude and a homophobe, and favors reinstating Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature law, which would make it illegal (even for straight couples )to engage in you know what.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/ken-cuccinelli-oral-sex_b_3639244.html
Max_OK thinks so much like every other progressive drone it’s a surprise he can construct a sentence on his own. They’re not terribly coherent sentences mind you….
John Vonderlin
I am curious of what others think is the statistical significance of the recent 129 degree temperature in Death Valley. Given that the all-time record there is five degrees hotter and that record just “celebrated” its centennial this July, I am particularly wondering about the statistical aspects of a worldwide extreme record being untouched, or even closely approached for so long?
Secondarily, are there proxies for extremely high temperatures in the distant past, and if so, what do they tell us about the frequency of occurrences of previous extreme events?
Thirdly, can someone provide a link to, or historical overview of the previous heat records around the world before the 1913 event? Wikipedia provides records by country, but not the history of previous records locally. I’d be interested in knowing if other extreme local records have been as long lasting as Death Valley’s?
The Pacific is in La Nina territory.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=nino34
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx
It will intensify towards the Austral spring.
The world seems to be greening. Has this increased photosynthesis at the same time as soil respiration has increased?
http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx
The latter is discussed here.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/07/soil-carbon-permanent-pasture-as-an-approach-to-co2-sequestration/
La Niña? Hmm…maybe, but that would mean even more energy stored in the oceans and less released to the troposphere for this period.
Chief Hydro said:
“You are quite wrong. Planetary energy (not just ocean) is lost in an El Nino and gained in La Nina â it is not simply a matter of redistribution of energy.”
——-
Not sure how I could be wrong about a point I did not address. I made the point that the net flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere is greater during an El Niño than during a La Niña. Now, if you want to broaden this topic, to talk about what happens to that energy once it moves from ocean to atmosphere, I am happy to do that. We know that much of it will pass through the atmosphere and go out into space. If this is what you are referring to as the loss of “Planetary” energy, then you are correct.
You are quite wrong to prattle on about the Earth gaining energy without understanding the reality of toa radiant flux.
‘CERES data show that clouds have a net radiative warming influence during La Niña conditions and a net cooling influence during El Niño, but the magnitude of the anomalies varies greatly from one ENSO event to another.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
‘The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each
of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability,
all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
It is a mistake to think in terms of one subsystem.
I completely agree Chief Hydro. Best way to think about Earth’s energy system is by looking at the whole system.
No – the only way to think about the global energy dynamic is with TOA radiant flux data. The system is far too complex with far too many unknowns otherwise.
Oh c’mon now Chief. Your TOA flux can only measure the net in versus out, but says nothing about where that difference is going in terms of the system– and that’s the interesting part. More has been coming in than going out (anywhere from about 0.5 w/m^2 to 1 w/m^2 for quite some time, and how that extra is moving about the system is what we’d like to know. During El Ninos, a bigger bit of energy moves from ocean to atmosphere, and during La Ninas, the opposite is true. But on top of this, we’d like to know where the extra long-term energy is accumulating. Seems some is in the oceans, the cryosphere, and the the biosphere. Got any other ideas?
You are quite wrong. Planetary energy (not just ocean) is lost in an El Nino and gained in La Nina – it is not simply a matter of redistribution of energy.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=52
But on decadal scales – in ERBS the energy out was 0.7 W/m2 in IR, - 2.1 W/m2 in SW , and 1.4 W m2 W/m2 net. So cooling in IR, warming in SW.
http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf
In CERES we have a similar story.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif.html?sort=3&o=116
It tells us not merely that there is extra energy in the system – but the source of the variability in changing cloud radiative forcing mostly. .
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=14
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earthâs radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
This seems quite simple – there is a ‘large natural variability in the Earthâs radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics’.
Prattling on about the Earth gaining energy at whatever your latest figure is – is an utter nonsense. The reality – and variability – is vastly different.
Chief Hydrolgist, the ENSO indices posted here are very close to neutral.
H Matthew
It is at early stages but can’t help to evolve as the feedbacks kick in – http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=soi&p=weekly
The change in top of atmosphere radiant change naturally a lot more than any mooted change in greenhouse gas forcing. Thus it is an error to think that the satellite records show AGW – and an error as well to think that internal variability doesn’t change the total energy budget of the Earth.
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earthâs radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
The relevant satellite records show that cloud radiative forcing is the significant variable in the satellite era. Now we may quibble about the data – but we should start from a realistic interpretation.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=14
http://www.benlaken.com/documents/AIP_PL_13.pdf
R Gates:
I said that warming has stopped.
We do not know yet whether it is a stoppage or a pause. As you know, the climate is always changing, so at some stage it will start cooling or warming. No doubt we can argue then whether the current non-warming was a stoppage or a pause.
I did not mention GH gas forcing. You did.
I was trying to discuss the relationship between measured parameters and recommendations to policymakers. What is your point?
Schrodinger’s Cat:
Just suggesting you be specfic when making the comment the “warming has stopped” in regard to what part of the Earth system you are referring to over what specfic time frame. Seems some “skeptics” think that policy should be adopted or not adopted based on a short-term period and the lowest thermal interia part of the system. If the oceans were cooling as rapidly as they are gaining energy we could say the ‘warming has stopped”, but they aren’t and so we should be precise.
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, âThese natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
The 20 to 40 year regimes are apparent in proxy records going back 1000 years. We are in a cool planetary mode and this seems likely to last another 10 to 30 years. Tropospheric temperatures seem very likely (99-100%) to be stable at least for the next decade as La Niña intensifies and solar intensity declines in the 11 year cycle.
Chief Hydro said:
“We are in a cool planetary mode…”
___
Nope, we are in flattening troposphere temperature mode when less net energy is moving from oceans to atmosphere. But that doesn’t sound too exciting to prattle on about, does it?
You are increasingly insulting and idiotic gatesy.
The troposphere seem very likely not to warm for a decade to three at least with significant political implications. That’s the significant point. It is really quite a telling point as well. The rate of recent anthropogenic warming is nowhere near as great as the total.
The total system seems quite likely to lose energy as well as the cool planetary mode intensifies.
Chief said:
“The total system seems quite likely to lose energy as well as the cool planetary mode intensifies.”
—–
From the smell of it, I know exactly where you pulled this little gem from.
Gates sniffs at the gem instead of gazing into its cool, limpid, and lucid depths, hinting of millenial scale changes during the Holocene.
==========================
You’re snide bs notwithstanding you mean?
In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html
If ‘real’ it suggests a very much diminished role for greenhouse gases in recent climate variability.
My question above about how climate scientists should react to uncertainty still stands.
My own view of climate change is worthless, but maybe standards are falling, so it may be as good as the view of the Met Office.
I believe that warming is probably following the relationship with atmospheric CO2 concentration and is showing a decreasing sensitivity as saturation is reached.
I have serious doubts about positive water vapour GHG feedback and believe that water vapour is more associated with various negative feedbacks.
I believe that TSI effects are underestimated, especially the effect of high energy UV variability on atmospheric chemistry.
My belief is that AGW is real, significant, but not important, and possibly beneficial.
In my view, the attempts to demonize CO2 are just crazy. It is an essential gas and without it we would not exist.
Regarding water vapor feedback, you have to think of there being an effectively infinite reservoir for water vapor (the ocean), and the only thing keeping the atmospheric concentration in check is the atmospheric temperature profile which forces the water vapor to condense. Raising that temperature is like raising the lid that keeps it in check, and it will quickly fill up to the new equilibrium that follows the saturation change (7% more H2O per degree C).
If the changes in the ocean and cryosphere we’re so extreme I’d agree with your guess as a reasonable guess. But as long as we continue to see such extreme changes in ocean and cryosphere (better long-term indicators of a gradual long-term forcing from GH gas increases) then we know the Earth system continues to feel the full effects of AGW– sometimes it is more apparent in the troposphere, and sometimes it is not.
Indeed, I was referring to the equilibrium case. What we have now is a decreasing RH because the land has been warming faster in the transient climate of the last 30 years, which is also throwing off those sensitivity studies that end up with low values.
Jim D Matthew Marler, the GHG mechanism is that the infra-red heat loss from the earth is decreased by adding GHGs. This is why heat accumulates in the system, at least until the earth surface warms enough to restore the balance at the top.
Yes. How can that be occurring without the troposphere warming, where the CO2 molecules mostly reside? With ever more CO2 molecules in that finite volume the mean free path between collisions gets ever smaller, which must warm the environs even more. The one possibility that I can see is that more and more energy is being stored in the water vapor (i.e. in the latent heat of vaporization) — yet somehow without increasing the rate of transfer by water from the surface to the upper troposphere.
There are two responses to the increased top-of-atmosphere forcing. 1. part of the surface does warm (the land and atmosphere above it) and increases outward IR there, and 2. the imbalance increases causing a net rate of energy gain in the earth system, mostly the ocean heat content, which is not a sustainable response because eventually a warming ocean heat content does lead to a warmer ocean surface.
Matthew,
Convection guarantees that the temperature profile of the troposphere does not change much, and that the warming rate of the troposphere cannot exceed significantly that of the surface. Therefore your argument is totally moot.
Convection guarantees that the temperature profile of the troposphere does not change much, and that the warming rate of the troposphere cannot exceed significantly that of the surface.
Can the temperature of the troposphere decline while the increased CO2 accumulation in the troposphere is causing an increased heat accumulation elsewhere in the system? How much of a difference is “significant”?
The temperature of the troposphere is governed by the surface temperature, so if a PDO phase causes the ocean surface to cool, the troposphere there can cool too. If you look where the cooling is occurring, this is what is happening now. The land surface warms meanwhile, especially the NH continents.
The heat capacity of the atmosphere is too small to influence much any persistent changes. It’s important for weather, but not for climate. From the point of view of climate the atmosphere is a thin layer of insulation and color on the surface. The heat capacity of a thin layer like that is irrelevant but the color and the level of insulation provided are important.
By color I have in mind the clouds that affect albedo. The insulating effect is strengthened by additional CO2. Feedbacks manifest themselves both in the color (albedo) and in the level of insulation that the atmosphere provides.
Pekka PirilÀ Convection guarantees that the temperature profile of the troposphere does not change much, and that the warming rate of the troposphere cannot exceed significantly that of the surface.
I thought I would try this again. The graph that I linked to shows that the temperature of the troposphere fluctuates, though the trend over the last 17 years is flat or slightly down. So when you say that “Convection guarantees that the temperature profile of the troposphere does not change much”, what do you mean by much? Was the temperature change of the troposphere during the preceding 17 years irrelevant?
What is the mechanism by which the increased absorption of radiant energy by the increased concentration of CO2 in the troposphere conveys extra energy to the rest of the climate system without increasing the energy and temperature of the surrounding air? When CO2 molecules absorb radiation they mostly transfer the energy to the ambient N2 and O2 via collision before emitting radiant energy: so how can the increase in the concentration/number of CO2 molecules cause an energy accumulation somewhere else other than their vicinity? The fact that the troposphere has small mass compared to the mass of the deep ocean hardly supports the idea that increasing CO2 can warm the ocean without warming the troposphere, does it?
Matthew Marler, this is where the blanket analogy works. Adding CO2 reduces infra-red heat loss, so it is the surface cooling rates that are suppressed and this leads to net surface warming over time. The atmosphere/blanket itself doesn’t have to be warmed to be effective at restricting heat loss.
The tight relationship between the surface temperature and the temperature of the troposphere at some altitude holds only for the average values over long enough periods as the local weather related fluctuations are large.
As I already wrote, the reason for this relationship is in convection. Convection transfers the more energy from the surface to the troposphere the larger the temperature difference is. If the troposphere warms due to some other reason, we have less convection and that brings the relationship back to its normal value. Convection reacts strongly to rather small deviations from the normal value and by that maintains a stable relationship.
The lapse rate, i.e. the rate by which temperature drops with increasing altitude is rather stable and close to the value 6.5 C/km when averages over time are considered. There are deviations from that most notably at high latitudes, but those don’t change the overall picture.
Jim D: this is where the blanket analogy works.
I think that is another place where the blanket analogy fails.
Pekka PirilÀ As I already wrote, the reason for this relationship is in convection. Convection transfers the more energy from the surface to the troposphere the larger the temperature difference is. If the troposphere warms due to some other reason, we have less convection and that brings the relationship back to its normal value. Convection reacts strongly to rather small deviations from the normal value and by that maintains a stable relationship.
You did already write that, and I did not disagree with the concept of convection which I have written of myself. What do you mean by a “stable relationship” when the data show that the troposphere temperature fluctuates?
The mechanism insisted upon by the skeptical warmer — increased absorption of long wave radiation by increased concentrations of CO2 in the troposphere — can not warm other parts of the climate system without warming the adjacent troposphere first.
Matthew Marler, your conceptual model fails when you expect the atmosphere to warm before the surface. It doesn’t. The surface warms first and convection does the rest, warming the atmosphere.
Matthew,
I’m surprised that you still miss the logic. You write:
The surface is not warmed by the atmosphere but by the solar radiation; it’s cooled by the atmosphere. At no point do we need any mechanism by which the atmosphere warms the surface (backradiation is also just a reduction in the cooling by IR, not warming). An atmosphere with more CO2 is less efficient in cooling the atmosphere due to less efficient radiative heat transfer. Throughout the troposphere changes in convection compensate for the changes in radiative heat transfer maintaining an almost constant average lapse rate. At the top of the troposphere convection cannot provide a full compensation leading to the outcome that the whole troposphere warms with more CO2.
Looking more carefully all kind of feedbacks kick in. The lapse rate is not strictly unchanged (although it may actually change less than models predict meaning that the negative lapse rate feedback is significantly weaker. This is the controversy on the tropospheric hot spot). Other feedbacks include the positive water vapor feedback and cloud feedbacks which include both positive and negative contributions.
Pekka PirilÀ Throughout the troposphere changes in convection compensate for the changes in radiative heat transfer maintaining an almost constant average lapse rate.
The data showed that over the past 17 years the troposphere was not in fact a constant temperature; nor had it been in the preceding 17 years.
I did not mean to imply that downward radiation was necessary to warm the surface; indeed, I explicitly wrote that the absorbed radiant energy is quickly converted to kinetic energy in the surrounding air molecules. There is no known mechanism by which the increased accumulation of CO2 in the troposphere can lead to increased absorption of radiation in the troposphere and an increase in the water vapor energy or any other part of the climate system without the troposphere warming first. You and I independently wrote that it is possible that the energy accumulation of which the skeptical warmist wrote resides in the increased energy of the increased water vapor. The mystery, the “cavity” in the theory, is how that can happen without the troposphere warming. Increased vaporization of water can certainly slow the troposphere warming, but it can not prevent the troposphere from warming.
Other authors have written that increased CO2 will increase the downwelling IR, by about 3.7 W/m^2; and that the increased downwelling will indeed warm the earth surface more than it is now warmed, and increase water vapor over what it is now.
Matthew,
The mechanism of increased absorption is very well known and accurately measured in laboratory and also in the atmosphere. All this is known without any significant uncertainty.
The troposphere warms very little in comparison to the temperature that it would have without this additional warming, too little for being directly observable. It warms so little because the influence on convection is so strong. Reduced heat flow from below means that the surface warming proceeds at the same pace within our ability to measure more persistent temperature changes than those related to weather phenomena.
I didn’t write that. The additional latent energy of the troposphere is not any more important than the additional sensible heat energy of the troposphere. The whole heat capacity of the atmosphere including that related to latent heat is too small for being significant for changes in climate.
The ocean and soil layers near the surface have a hugely larger heat capacity. Warming can proceed only at the rate determined by the ratio of heat flux to this heat capacity. That’s true both for the troposphere and the layers below surface.
There’s no mystery or “cavity” in the theory. The vaporization does not have any significant effect either, all is controlled by the flux at TOA and the effective below surface heat capacity of the Earth.
This is not an issue of physics but an issue of semantics. People mean different things when they use the word “warm”. There are advantages in considering IR emission of the surface and downwelling radiation separately. One advantage is that the emission from the surface is easy to calculate with reasonable accuracy from the Stefan-Boltzmann law and estimated average emissivity. In that approach the
surface IR emission is the largest of all components of the energy balance and downwelling IR the second largest.
For the present discussion I preferred, however, the net effect of IR, which is much smaller, significantly less than the sum of convection and latent heat transfer near surface. Going to higher altitudes the share of net IR grows until reaches 100% at tropopause (that’s what determines the altitude of the tropopause).
Few comments up the tread referring to:
– earth is still accumulating missing energy –
Monty Pythonesk dead parrot somewhere in there.
That was a great skit:
When a science has lost the plot, gone off the rails, diverted from reality, it is maybe a good time to get back to simple basics and build it up from there.
Agree. GH gases accumulation is all about alterations in Earth’s energy balance. Go back to talking about Energy in the Earth system and you’ll find your way back to simple basics.
Yes, a lot of skeptics didn’t start at the beginning, They started at the end and worked backwards. Better to build on the foundations and work forwards the way science did over the past century. Start with Arrhenius.
Jim D: Start with Arrhenius.
Well sure, but don’t end with Arrhenius.
The skeptics first have to say whether or not they agree with Arrhenius’s basic idea, and if not why not.
JimD, “The skeptics first have to say whether or not they agree with Arrheniusâs basic idea, and if not why not.” A good number of skeptics would agree that Arrhenius’ first work grossly over estimated water vapor feedback and that his second estimate which agrees with Callendar’s 1938 estimate which agrees with current observations is the one to quote. Not his post publication peer criticized original.
captd, I don’t mean using Arrhenius’s numbers which were not accurate enough, but using today’s numbers with Arrhenius’s methods. First do that and see what you get. Basically it is the 3.7 W/m2 forcing for a CO2 doubling and the water vapor feedback for constant RH, remembering this is ECS, or dispute that as a method to get ECS and provide something better.
I have seen some mentions of Callendar, but have not seen anyone explain where he differed from Arrhenius yet. Does anyone understand it enough to explain it, or do I have to search this one down myself?
JimD
You might find this of interest. It is an appraisal by Giles Slocum of the US weather service of Callendar’s 1938 paper. It was written in 1955 and to me the prose and clarity sets standards that many modern scientists could usefully emulate.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/083/mwr-083-10-0225.pdf
tonyb
Ooh, show that to Stevie Mac.
=========
JimD, “I have seen some mentions of Callendar, but have not seen anyone explain where he differed from Arrhenius yet. Does anyone understand it enough to explain it, or do I have to search this one down myself?”
It is not that difficult to understand. Arrhenius had tables by latitude of his estimated CO2 impact over land and water. He actually produced regional sensitivity estimates that could be used to verify his hypothesis.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/02/arrhenius-is-still-dead-but-his-mistake.html
Compare them yourself.
Tonyb, thanks. While interesting, it focuses on the attempts to detect CO2 changes before the Keeling work, and Callendar seems to have been at the forefront of this detection effort. I didn’t see any different ideas on the effects of CO2 here.
captd, yes, as I said Arrhenius did not have good global data. Today we have gridded reanalyses that are far superior, and his methods can be applied to that and are, to determine sensitivity effects.
JImD
In his autobiography Keeling says that Callendar greatly influenced him and he used Callendar’s figures from this document when calculating his co2 expectations from Mauna Loa .
The figure of 350 to 400ppm was widely accepted during much of the 19th and 20th century, although with greater variability than is thought possible today
There were tens of thousands of observations by many hundreds of scientists, some internationally famous, carried out during that period using increasingly sophisticated apparatus.
if they were ALL incorrect it demonstrates that knowledge always increases and we shouldn’t believe that the current crop of scientists have the definitive answers to climate change any more than they did in the past
tonyb
JimD, “captd, yes, as I said Arrhenius did not have good global data. Today we have gridded reanalyses that are far superior, and his methods can be applied to that and are, to determine sensitivity effects.”
Very evasion response, good job! That is exactly what I did. Sensitivity “globally” excluding any long term persistence is about 1.6C per doubling. That seems to be a pretty common theme lately. Considering long term persistence “sensitivity” is 0.8 C which marries rather well with the current estimate of ~335 Wm-2 of DWLR, ~335 Wm-2 of black body source energy (that would be the average ocean energy Jim).
Like Arrhenius’s work, there is a lot of post publication peer criticism of some of your other favorite references. Science is marching along nicely JimD.
Kim
You are just trying to cause trouble. :) It is a non subject as far as Steve is concerned.
However it doesn’t get away from the point I made to Jim that thousands of reputable scientists over a period of 140 years created tens of thousands of measurements that these days are considered wildly incorrect. Therefore we shouldn’t believe that todays science isn’t going to be considered outdated and incorrect n due course
(incidentally Callendar became very dubious of his own theory during the hard winter of 1962/3)
tonyb
Jim D: The skeptics first have to say whether or not they agree with Arrheniusâs basic idea, and if not why not.
I speak only for myself, but I agree that CO2 absorbs radiation in the wavelengths radiated by the earth.
Getting from there to a future of warming from a future of increased CO2 is full of cavities, holes, inconsistencies, known unknowns, etc. Quantifying, reliably, the effect of doubling CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, over any time span, is next to impossible given present knowledge.
“Yes, a lot of skeptics didnât start at the beginning, They started at the end and worked backwards.”
Most skeptics only started paying attention to “climate science” when the “consensus” informed us – “Oh, by the way, we’re going to decarbonize the global economy…starting now.”
And every consensus scientist I have read started at the end too, acceptance of CAGW, and worked “forward” from there to show how “it’s worse than we thought.” I have not seen evidence of a single prominent consensus scientist who ever dissented from the orthodoxy that “global warming” was caused primarily by man, and “we have to do something about it” (ie. decarbonize, tax, regulate, etc.).
And don’t raise Kerry Emanuel or Richard Muller as “former skeptics” unless you can (for the first time) cite to a paper, article or speech where they actually said “global warming” does not require any substantial government action.
The scientific ideas of CO2 sensitivity of 2-4 C per doubling were not controversial when estimated in Charney’s report in 1979. At that point it was academic science. It only became controversial when the link between fossil fuels and climate change was quantified and predicted using those ideas during the 1980’s and the 90’s where previous successes with acid rain and the ozone hole spurred on a similar effort for CO2.
tonyb, Slocum’s Figure 1 actually shows a line that would predict 370 ppm by 2000, which was quite a good estimate of what actually happened, and it was done in 1955. Certainly impressive.
captd, instead of taking Arrhenius’s radiative estimates, you need to take modern radiative transfer programs like MODTRAN and see the effect of doubling in each latitude band. This will put your estimate more in line with current thinking. There are papers by Schmidt et al. that do this all for you to check the global-averaged contribution of CO2 changes.
JimD, “captd, instead of taking Arrheniusâs radiative estimates, you need to take modern radiative transfer programs like MODTRAN and see the effect of doubling in each latitude band. This will put your estimate more in line with current thinking. There are papers by Schmidt et al. that do this all for you to check the global-averaged contribution of CO2 changes.”
I have. MODTRAN is up/down only though Jim. You have to consider the anisotropic transfer and advection involved as well. As far as “current” thinking goes, the simplistic up/down approach is FUBAR.
Once you consider the advection on all levels, i.e. meridional and zonal heat transfer that is driven by mechanical means, Coriolis, rotational and tidal influence along with hemispheric asymmetry, you find you have one marvelously complex puzzle. Not an unsolvable puzzle, but solvable only to a limited range of accuracy, about +/- 2C meaning CO2 forcing is less than the range of natural variability that can be expected.
Mosher just posted an interesting link to a poster, http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/programs/scientific/10-11/biomathstat/Langford_W.pdf that can give you some idea about realistic limits. A. M. Selvam also has a bit of work on fractals that indicates there are “stable” as in much more likely ratios common to natural turbulent processes. Kinda of fun stuff.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/07/its-perturbing.html
If you have followed the discussions on SSW events and Brewer-Dobson circulation, meridional and zonal variations can push the stability range of the NH circulation much more than the SH atmospheric circulation creating those pesky pseudo-cyclic oscillations that drive folks nutz.
You are still wading in the kiddie pool.
captd, you are slowly coming to a realization that you need a GCM, aren’t you. I was avoiding leading you in that direction, but you got there in the end.
JimD, “captd, you are slowly coming to a realization that you need a GCM, arenât you. I was avoiding leading you in that direction, but you got there in the end.”
I have known that from day one, but that is just to narrow the range of error, which is likely an exercise in futility using the current models. Aqua and Ridgeworld models are making progress, but simple static models can out perform many of the complex models.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/07/imbalances-versus-toa.html
That is a simple model based on Carnot Efficiency to estimate B-D energy transfer in the mid and upper stratosphere. That is not included in the AOGCM’s btw nor is the impact of SSW events. It is just a simple model but it does the job. The real bitch is an asymmetric ocean model which should have been step one for GCM.
captd, however, doubling CO2 only changes the energy trapping by 1%, so the behavior would still be quite linear and approaches such as Arrhenius’s which are basically perturbation analyses would still work. It is not like going to a Venus climate or completely changing the general circulation, or something. It is just we are very sensitive to even that 1% change which is not large in the big picture.
JimD, “captd, however, doubling CO2 only changes the energy trapping by 1%, so the behavior would still be quite linear and approaches such as Arrheniusâs which are basically perturbation analyses would still work.
Right, for the 1% in a small linear range. That makes CO2 a good tracer gas. The problem with most of the model predictions is that they overestimate CO2 feedbacks and underestimate natural influences. The CO2 part is easy, Callendar’s simple model outperforms the modern models. The only reason my estimate is lower, 0.8C, is because of the back to basics black body cavity/radiant shell model that started the ball rolling to begin with. TOA imbalance responds to ocean imbalance which is fixed to the effective black body energy of the oceans, 335 Wm-2 @ ~4C degrees which is the black body temperature it should be. Earth is just a multi-layered black body. All of that is just accounting though. Had K&T balanced the Earth Energy Budget instead of trying to force it closed, we could have save a decade of quibbling. Now the middle atmosphere, stratosphere up, is needed to actually balance the budget which the false balance published in K&T hid.
Now there is need to consider the areal difference with altitude, (1.5 to 3 percent error), Twilight (anisotropic absorption) and timing because anisotropic absorption produces basically pre-heat and holding temperature in the 75+ Wm-2 absorbed in the atmosphere.
All that is pretty simple, it is the Self-Organizing Criticality that is the fun part.
Having now looked at Callendar’s 1938 paper and in particular Fig. 2, that McIntyre referred to. We see that he did his sensitivity for a fixed water vapor amount, so no water vapor feedback. His words imply that he thinks increased water vapor leads to increased cloudiness and water vapor solar scattering, but he did not quantify these, so he may have used this to dismiss the water vapor feedback, but it is hard to speculate. His own measurements of global warming, which were surprisingly good, were higher than his theory predicted.
JimD, “His own measurements of global warming, which were surprisingly good, were higher than his theory predicted.”
That could be because his estimate was low or because there is longer term persistent warming. It is still kind of a toss up, but the long term persistence is gaining ground. That is the reason for the Oppo IPWP post and the following the energy post.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/07/still-following-energy.html
If you smooth out all the information, paleo is a waste of time, but being a little selective can be educational. ENSO and AMO are the largest known natural drivers and what better than the IPWP and Subpolar North Atlantic to estimate their past influence.
For anyone with access to Matlab another possibility is to pick the published code from Science of Doom’s lengthy thread. With all the explanations and discussion presented there it’s not too difficult (to many, but not all) to understand every step and get convinced on the basic correctness of both the approach and actual implementation. The results are also in fair agreement with those obtained from Modtran as long as the calculations are done for an atmosphere not too different of the Earth atmosphere.
I wrote my above comment without refreshing the thread first. Thus it refers to a message far higher in the thread.
A full calculation of atmospheric energy transfers requires certainly much more than calculating the radiative part only. It’s easy to get convinced of that by reading any textbook of atmospheric science.
Does anyone WHY Pee Dee Belemnite was established as ÎŽ13C value of zero for 13C/12C ratios?
I know that had an anomalously high 13C:12C ratio (0.0112372), but I don’t know why this was used for calibration measurements.
Was there a good reason for this choice?
Roy Spenser Discovers Bird at North Pole
At his web site Roy Spenser writes about his surprise at seeing a bird at the North Pole. I thought this might be a first, but to be sure, I Googled “bird north pole.” It turns out Roy’s discovery was nothing new. According to National Geographic, birds visit the north pole, but don’t live there. Perhaps Roy thought the bird was a resident.
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/north-pole/?ar_a=1
I think it possible that by the year 2100, Earth’s global temperature may have risen by 1 C.It even seems remotely possible that global temperatures
may have risen by 2 C, but any temperature rise above 2 C seems very unlikely, I can’t rule out supernova killing us by 2100. And can’t rule out other unknowns. I think higher than 2 C rise by 2100 is in realm of fantasy- rise of higher than 2 C caused by CO2 is close to impossible- beyond fantasy.
I think due it’s that with couple decades, we could see cooling. And such possibility of cooling is consensus position largely having to do with predicting future solar activity. And there are other factors that could lead
to such a prediction. So currently, there hasn’t been any measurable or statistical significant warming over last 15 years, and continuation of neither warming or cooling over next 2 decades is probably more unlikely than cooling or warming.
But suppose the tread remains flat or cools over the next 2 decades, the question I wonder about is it possible that global CO2 levels can remain flat or decline? A one year dip wouldn’t mean much, but a few years of not increasing CO2 levels, could be somewhat earth shattering. The only factor which which not make it as earth shattering is the degree of error in the measurement of global CO2.
It seems to me, as likely to see a decrease in global CO2 levels, as significant drop in global temperature or a rise in global by 2 C by 2100.
So, unlikely but possible.
So by significant drop in temperature would be more than .5 C decrease in trend over next 2 decades. I would say it seems more unlikely that over 2 decade the temperature increases by less than .5 C or decreases by less than .5.
But suppose the Sun goes quiet within a year and stays this way for couple decades, and “other stuff happens” and the result is that within 2 decades
we get the disaster of 1 C drop in global temperature. Would such dramatic
drop over a long enough time period, affect global CO2 levels?
Or let’s talk about something which would easier to happen, say polar temperatures were to significantly cool [and not have much affect upon global temperature] could this affect global CO2 levels. Or what happens if arctic region warm to such extent that one has noticeable greening- treeline jumps northward by 100 or more km. Or perhaps one has significant increase life in arctic ocean due to actual getting a ice free arctic
during it’s summer. And/or once get volcanic eruption that provides enough iron over entire arctic ocean.
So question is that within 2 decade time frame is possible, due to various factors, that we could see a measurable and significant decrease in global CO2?
Given that we have added 120 ppm so far, how much more CO2 do you think will be added by 2100 without mitigation? Three times as much? Four? Doesn’t this factor figure into your temperature increase?
According to NOAA (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ )
atmospheric CO2 from all causes (i.e. natural and manmade) increased from approximately 315ppm in 1960 to 400ppm today. What is the source of “…we have added 120 ppm so far…”, and does the “we” include nature?
“Given that we have added 120 ppm so far, how much more CO2 do you think will be added by 2100 without mitigation? Three times as much? Four? Doesnât this factor figure into your temperature increase?”
So your question is that in more than a century we have had increase of 120 ppm, and question is in less than a century how much will global CO2 increase?
Perhaps another 120 ppm. Maybe 240 ppm. And it seems very unlikely it would increase by 400 ppm.
It seems to me that any government effort to date, which has been claimed to be using public resources towards reducing CO2 has had very little effect upon global CO2 levels or even national CO2 levels.
The most significant effect that humans have done to have measurable or significant effect upon human emission of CO2, has been nuclear power plants. A governmental effect which also had a measurable effect
has been policies which have result in slower economic growth. The recent and continuing great recession seems to have had measurable effect upon CO2 emission. Such things as requiring and government funding ethanol use, solar energy, wind energy, green energy research, hybrid cars, car standards, and etc, other than creating less economic growth, have not reduced CO2 emissions.
Fracking which produces oil and natural gas, has been another major factor in reducing coal use, and therefore like nuclear energy has reduced CO2 emission. Blocking the pipeline, Keystone, has increased CO2 emission due to transporting oil in a means which causes more emission of CO2, than a pipeline uses. Blocking the Keystone pipeline has made the transportation of oil less efficient, and thereby as contributed to slower economic growth and increase prices. So other making people in general poorer [particularly the poor and lower income].
Another factor which significant reduced CO2 emission, is market forces and improving technology [driven by market forces] which caused more efficient energy use. For instance the US is far more energy efficient than China, and China is benefiting from US technology and is significantly catching up, recently.
So government action to date hasn’t worked unless one believes what works is creating more US and/or global poverty.
So unless government mitigation [such China and India’s of increasing the amount nuclear power plants] actually reduces CO2 emission- it’s not relevant.
China is largest CO2 emitter in the world, US is reducing it’s CO2 emission due largely to fracking and improving energy efficiency. And India will get to point having higher CO2 emission than US. India and China ever increasing the CO2 emission [relative to rest of world] mainly due to increasing amount of Coal electrical generation. And both these nations lack adequate coal reserves to continue such a rapid use of coal. Due to nature of the economies related to coal, the large quantities of china and India coal use can not be replaced with importing it. They can import say 10% but can’t import 90% or more.
Both China and India import coal mainly due to high cost to domestically produce it. Politically and economical 50% or higher import seems unlikely.
Therefore since we know their national coal reserves and we know their current consumption, and since coal is relatively costly to transport, we know these countries will need to switch to some other energy source which emits less CO2 [wood produces more CO2 per amount of energy- but wood isn’t an option, in terms of major source of energy for these countries].
Briefly, we might expect than global CO2 emissions will remain around 30 billion tonnes and not expect this to double to 60 billion tonnes, though we should not expect China to reduce CO2 emission within next couple decades, but it’s in the card for such increase in coal use for much beyond 30 years.
What is possible is more nuclear power use, and more fracking to get natural gas. Such things as increasing the supply of electrical energy,
by using nuclear energy and natural gas makes economic sense, if permitted by governments, will reduce global CO2 emissions.
PMHinSC, 280 ppm is regarded as the natural level, so 400 ppm has been added, actually more like twice that, but half went into the ocean and biosphere.
gbaikie, my question had the desired effect, because just by scaling what has happened so far in emission and temperature with what will happen in terms of emission naturally leads to thoughts of mitigation and its need. Adding only 120-240 ppm in the next 90 years is a highly mitigated scenario, because it means lowering the current burn rate even with an increasing and developing world population. This could only happen with a global understanding of the problem, both in the developing and developed countries.
According to NOAA (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ )
atmospheric CO2 from all causes (i.e. natural and manmade) increased from approximately 315ppm in 1960 to 400ppm today. What is the source of ââŠwe have added 120 ppm so farâŠâ, and does the âweâ include nature?”
It is guess that before the industrial revolution [a vague concept] and/or before human global population exceeded 2 billion, global CO2 was around 260 to 290 ppm. Jim picked 280 ppm added 120 ppm giving
400 ppm. So well over century. You could say, 1850 to 2013, so
163 years, CO2 might risen by 120 ppm. Though you also start at 1750 if wanted to.
But you more correct point to the “315ppm in 1960 to 400ppm today.”
As during this period in terms of human CO2 emission which is obsessed
about by the CAGWers, it practicable all of human emission.
So if you include what is measured the actual measurement is an increase of 85 ppm. How much is caused by humans is actually not known.
One could also look it in terms of amount added. 1 ppm equals
7.76 billion tonnes of CO2. 120 times 7.76 equals 931.2 billion tonnes
So Humans emission from fossil fuel and cement making since 1960
has exceeded 1000 billion tonnes.
Currently: 2011 estimate is 33.3 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
If that rate continues [and it should instead increase] in 30 year
the world will add another 1000 billion tons.
The problem is natural emission and absorption is only vaguely guess at
but safe to say magnitude per year is more than hundred of billion tonnes.
Vaguely one could say for 30 billion added about 1/2 remains of the atmosphere. But it’s all rather wooly. It’s religious doctrine, based upon a dislike for modern technology.
But simply don’t expect something wild to happen, in the 50 year it went up by 85 ppm. And in another 50 years it might go up 100 ppm +/- 20 ppm. In fifty years population growth may stop. In fifty years China and India have no coal to speak of. In fifty years some think we might have shortage of oil.
But what seems pretty certain, that in 50 years hoax of global warming will be history.
But if we spent a 1/10 of what we already wasted on global warming, and got serious about space exploration, in fifty years we could be harvesting solar energy in space and beaming it to Earth- having zero “carbon footprint” and provide more than enough electrical power needs for every living on Earth.
But also, if wanted to stop a hurricane, we could do that, and if wanted the planet warmer or cooler, we could do that, and do such things at a very affordable cost.
Jim D July 27, 2013 at 8:10 pm: “PMHinSC, 280 ppm is regarded as the natural level…”
Is that another way of saying there is no data so you are using a ‘97% consensus’ number of 280ppm?
280 ppm is the mean ice core value for the last millennium, but it started rising about the time man added CO2. There might be someone who doesn’t believe the natural level is near 280 ppm, but I haven’t heard anyone suggest that yet. It’s fine to go ahead and don’t take my word until you check the evidence for yourself. You will find even “skeptical” blogs have accepted this much, which gives you a chance to break new ground in “skepticism”.
“Jim D | July 28, 2013 at 1:16 am |
280 ppm is the mean ice core value for the last millennium, but it started rising about the time man added CO2. There might be someone who doesnât believe the natural level is near 280 ppm, but I havenât heard anyone suggest that yet.”
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/papers-on-atmospheric-co2-from-proxies/
Reference gbaikie | July 28, 2013 at 4:21 am |
Thanks for the link which can be used to claim historical (read natural) numbers anywhere from 180 to well over 1000ppm. I do not claim to know how much man (or nature) has contributed to the last 120ppm rise. I would, however, be surprised if natural causes weren’t a major contributor to the rise from 280 to 400ppm. Comments such as “but it started rising about the time man added CO2” constitute correlation not causation and certainly not proof.
It reminds me of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s comment – “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
More examples of the 3% denier crowd. They can not even acknowledge that excess atmospheric CO2 is due to combustion of fossil fuels.
When people talk about preindustrial, they are not talking about pre-Ice Ages. Yes the Eocene may have had 1000-2000 ppm and temperatures 10 C higher to match. This only proves the sensitivity point. It took millions of years for it to drop from those to the pre-industrial values because it was in the ocean too, so only geological processes could remove it. Not sure what point those references are supposed to help with. Find someone who disputes that the last millennium was mostly near 280 ppm.
Jim D | July 28, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
When people talk about preindustrial, they are not talking about pre-Ice Ages.
Right, and they aren’t talking about pre- Little Ice Age either.
Rather we can assume, it’s sometime after the invention of the steam engine or some time after American Independence.
“Yes the Eocene may have had 1000-2000 ppm and temperatures 10 C higher to match.”
But more important regarding Eocene period is location of the Antarctic continent. This was a period when an Antarctic hadn’t yet grown an ice cap- and it had trees and lots of animals other than penguins.
“This only proves the sensitivity point. It took millions of years for it to drop from those to the pre-industrial values because it was in the ocean too, so only geological processes could remove it. Not sure what point those references are supposed to help with. Find someone who disputes that the last millennium was mostly near 280 ppm.”
Geologic weathering would one major factors of removing CO2 from atmosphere- that part of natural processes which have not been measured with any accuracy- meaning the error bars in quantities guessed easily exceed all human emission- including all CO2 emission in addition to all fossil fuel burning.
But there is no question human activity has added some CO2 to atmosphere, just as there is no question humans have added some warmth to global temperature. Or urban heat effect is something easily measured and it quite significant on regional level, but with CO2 emission
it’s no where near as obvious to measure as compared to detecting a urban heat island effect. We have not yet measured the effect from increasing levels of CO2 or the increased levels which are considered to be caused from human activity. In other words we measuring down to a 1/10th of degree, and it’s not been measurable.
To imagine that human could actually notice the temperature difference is
ridiculous. But a human can feel the difference caused by urban heat island effect- this doesn’t require precise thermometers.
WebHubTelescope (@whut) July 28, 2013 at 12:49 pm:
“They can not even acknowledge that excess atmospheric CO2 is due to combustion of fossil fuels.”
And
Jim D July 28, 2013 at 12:56 pm: “Find someone who disputes that the last millennium was mostly near 280 ppm.”
I have no idea what âexcess atmospheric CO2â is. My guess is that you have a circular argument: combustions of fossil fuels causes âexcess atmospheric CO2â which is defined as the combustion of fossil fuels.
The issue isn’t that preindustrial CO2 was 280ppm or that it is now 400ppm. The immediate issue is what was contributed by man and what was contributed by nature. I contend that is an unanswered question; you claim to know but refuse to provide proof. Declarative statements, changing the subject, correlation, and name calling are not proof and certainly aren’t science.
The bigger issue is correlation between CO2 and climate. Until empirical data is available to prove that feedback is positive and significant, you make interesting but not compelling arguments. In the absence of proof you focus on CO2 while ignoring water vapor (a more potent green house gas) and albedo changes from carbon soot, land use, and perhaps other causes. I suggest you expand your rhetoric and discuss some other possible influences man may have on the climate.
PMHinSC (? Pre-menstrual hemorrhoids in South Carolina)
It is all man-caused aCO2 and I have written book chapters and blog posts describing this effect in detail so that you can’t accuse me of not doing the ground work on this topic.
In contrast, all you can do is blow smoke, which is the typical 3% denier solution to everything.
PMHinSC, if man has added twice as much CO2 through fossil fuel combustion as has appeared in the atmosphere, isn’t that definitive enough with some absorbed by the ocean? I don’t know what you are thinking. This sounds like Salby all over again, but he doesn’t understand the carbon cycle according to his own admission.
What is the cost of policies to mitigate man made climate change policies, and what would be the benefit of such policies?
I’ll try that again
What would be the cost of policies to mitigating man made climate change and what would be the benefit of such policies?
Steve McIntyre has a fine post over at climate audit. Some on that thread were discussing the Dunning Kruger syndrome. Seems to me the climate scientists need to clean their own house before turning an eye towards skeptics.
From the post at the inimitable Climate Audit (pardon me if this has already been discussed, I haven’t had much time for blogs lately):
“I thought that it would be an interesting exercise to see how Callendarâs 1938 âformulaâ applied out-of-sample when applied to observed forcing and compare it to the UK contribution to CMIP5 (HadGEM2), which I had been discussing. For my comparison, I used IPCC RCP4.5 forcing as a mainstream estimate, inputting their âCO2 equivalentâ of all forcings (RCP4.5 column 2). It turns out that RCP4.5 column 2 âCO2 equivalentâ includes aerosols converted to ppm CO2 somehow, as well as the other GHG gases (CH4, N2O, CFCs etc) plus aerosols (converted to ppm CO2). At present, I donât know how these estimates have been constructed and make no comment on their validity: for this exercise, I am merely taking them as face value for a relatively apples-to-apples comparison.
Callendarâs relationship was based on anomaly to âpresent mean temperatureâ. For my calculations, I adopted the 1921-1940 anomaly as an interpretation (differences from this are slight) and therefore centered HadCRUt4 observations and HadGEM2 on 1921-40 for comparison.
Callendarâs Figure 2 is for âtemperateâ zones but he reported that the relationship was âremarkably uniform for the different climate zones of the earthâ. For the purpose of the exercise, I therefore used the relationship of Callendarâs Figure 2 to estimate GLB temperature, recognizing that the parameters of this figure would only be an approximation to Callendarâs GLB calculation. I have not examined whether the Callendar formula might work better or worse for 60S-60N, as, in carrying out the exercise, I was not taking the position that the parameters in the Callendar formula were ârightâ â only seeing what would result.
Hereâs what resulted (as I showed in the previous post). A reconstruction from the Callendar 1938 formula applied to RCP4.5 CO2 equivalent seemingly out-performed the HadGEM2 GCM. While some readers presumed that âGCM-Qâ must have incorporated some knowledge or information of second-half 20th century temperature history in the development of the âmodelâ, this is not the case. âGCM-Qâ directly used the formula implicit in Callendar 1938 Figure 2. (I realize that my interest in the results arises in large part from their coherence with subsequent observations, but it wasnât as though I foraged around or did multiple experiments before arriving at the results that I showed here, the first runs of which I sent to Ross McKitrick and Steve Mosher.)”
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/
AGW deniers have to clean their own house first. There are dozens of krankpot theories that litter this site. Deniers turn their cheek over these because they likely figure more FUD is good.
Webby, Back out of the basement for a while? I personally ignore the sky dragons. I also tend to ignore Appell and Connolley. I do pay attention to McIntyre, Annan, Curry, Loehe and the quality denizens here, such as Chief and Pekka. You are nastier than the sky dragons and offer grey literature so you should by rights be the first one for Judith to moderate.
Egg Foo Young, the master of scrambled science.
Accusing scientists of bad numerical math skills without proof does not constitute a valid argument.
I love the name calling which you share with Rush Limbaugh. One of your heroes?
Here Judith
http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/programs/scientific/10-11/biomathstat/Langford_W.pdf
Mosher, I just can’t imagine why they would want to drop the symmetry assumption /sarc
Thx, this is good! I’ve flagged it to include in a future post
hmm also Robert has some some work on seasonality.some of the core charts will go up on the web site next week. its probably a bit too early to discuss them in depth.. but its related to the discussion..
Judith,
I posted a question just south of here on albedo and GCMs.
That looks like a good presentation. Thanks for the link.
Finally! Something I can relate to what I’ve read about chaos!
Something is bothering me about the Langford W. paper posted by Mosher. Typically, in a chaotic system, the more energy that is applied to the system, speaking in general terms, the more it tends to a chaotic attractor. On the way to the chaotic attractor, the system typically exhibits “doublings.” In the case of Hadley cells, one would expect with incresing energy applied to the system; one cell doubling to two, two to four, etc. This hypothesis has the system moving in the opposite direction.
It appears this is the case because the difference in the air temperature between the equator and poles is diminishing. In fact, only one pole is warming to any great extent – the North Pole – and this is due to warmer water. The Antartic is more isolated from the sea since it is composed of land.
We know sea temperatures are linked to natural cycles and this is probably what has thrown a wrench in the CAGW’ers model machine. In the case of the Hadley cell model also, the warming of the Arctic could be due to the natural cycles.
So even though the paper looks interesting and may have found a nugget of truth, the Hadley cell structure might in the end depend on natural cycles of the sea rather than only or at all on CO2.
The presentation is interesting, but it must be noted that the system they have modeled is in many ways different from the atmosphere. That may be the main reason for a comment in the conclusions of their original paper:
They continue discussing some of the principal differences. The issues that they bring up have something in common with the above comment of jim2.
The following comments from their conclusions are also very relevant:
R in the above is not the radius of the sphere but the gap between the two concentric spheres, i.e. “the height of the atmosphere”. The outer edge of their atmosphere is another surface, not a free space.
jim2, “Something is bothering me about the Langford W. paper posted by Mosher. Typically, in a chaotic system, the more energy that is applied to the system, speaking in general terms, the more it tends to a chaotic attractor. On the way to the chaotic attractor, the system typically exhibits âdoublings.â In the case of Hadley cells, one would expect with incresing energy applied to the system; one cell doubling to two, two to four, etc. This hypothesis has the system moving in the opposite direction. ”
The doubling etc. is more likely due to a break down in stability. An attractor is just a more stable point which would depend on more than just the energy in the system. For Hadley,Ferrel and polar cells there would be stability of sorts for an odd number of cells per hemisphere. So you could have a one cell system at low energy, snow ball, a three cell at mid-energy, ice house and another one cell at high energy, greenhouse. If the distance from the equator to the pole was greater you could have a five cell per hemisphere system. According to Selvam there are preferred ratios that tend toward stability. 1.618… to 0.618… based on the Golden Ratio and the Penrose fractal pyramid. would indicate a Hadley Cell surface area of 127mkm^, Ferrel Cell of 78.8 mkm^ and Polar cell of 48.7 mkm^2 would be stable which is about what the southern hemisphere ratio is with the ITCZ shifted north of the equator. So “ice house” is probably stable due to the ACC which fixes the southern polar cell in the 60 degree latitude range allowing for a more stable polar vortex.
It is pretty interesting which ever way you go. Selvam just finds common stable ratios, fractals, while Langford is modeling N-S and coming close to the same conclusions.
Most of the energy driving the cells has to be centered on the equator. This means that vertical motion is the main driver. The difference in temperature from equator to poles is much less that that of surface at the equator to TOA.
jim2, “Most of the energy driving the cells has to be centered on the equator. This means that vertical motion is the main driver. The difference in temperature from equator to poles is much less that that of surface at the equator to TOA.”
Actually, they are the same, just the distances are different. Water still condenses at around 0 degrees and the coldest TOA temperature that is relevant is 184K, same as the coldest temperature ever recorded in the Antarctic. For a slush/snow ball Earth the equator to sink temperature would be shorter so there could be only one cell. For a three cell you would have a greater distance to the polar sink, if the ratios are right, it would be stable like the SH. If not, more variable like the NH. That is one of the reasons I check so many regional standard deviations.
As for most of the energy being at the Equator, yes but the thermal equator is actually 10 to 15 degrees north of the equator. That can shift 5 degrees and cause a degree of two difference in the global mean temperature. That changes the Hadley cell dimensions and the “westerlies”.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jrt0901.pdf
I’d blame the Poles. Clearly the Poles are the cause of all our problem.
Solution: get rid of the ice at the poles. Then we could have an equable climate for all people and all the little critters.
More equity for all. What more could the ‘Progressives’ desire?
Well, Peter, I am of the belief that all men are created equatorial, so I can’t jump to the conclusion that only the Poles are to blame.
I was wondering about Rivers of water in the Atmospheric Ocean and the impact of the projected added water vapor as a result of global warming to the atmospheric system.
“The nexus between atmospheric rivers and extreme precipitation across Europe
David A. Lavers*, Gabriele Villarini
Geophysical Research Letters
Volume 40, Issue 12, pages 3259â3264, 28 June 2013
“Extreme precipitation and floods in Europe are a recurring natural hazard causing large socioeconomic damages. Here we investigate the connection between annual maxima (AM) daily precipitation at a pan-European scale and atmospheric rivers (ARs), narrow filaments that convey the majority of the poleward water vapor transport within extratropical cyclones. We show that ARs are responsible for many AM precipitation days in Western Europe. The relationship is especially strong along the western European seaboard, with some areas having eight of their top 10 AM related to ARs. The effects of ARs are also seen as far inland as Germany and Poland. Southern Europe was most affected by ARs under negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) conditions, whereas northern Europe was more associated with a positive relationship between ARs and an NAO-type pattern. Our results suggest that ARs are critical in explaining the upper tail of the extreme precipitation distribution in Western Europe.”
It seems to me that there is a non homogeneous water system in the atmospheric oceans. Calculating which water shed system the added water vapor would influence (rain upon) would be hard to model.
lying on my back and watching the multi-layers of clouds passing, some cloud layers traveling in entirely different directions further adds to my questioning of how models account for such multi-layer cloud behavior.
Rivers of atmospheric water. Multi-layer clouds. Calculating an average number doesn’t seem to do justice to the atmospheric system, let alone an ocean atmospheric model representation.
I think I’ve never, oh, c’mon,
Clouds are havin’ a bit o’ fun on.
===============
It s obvious that all the computer models are bad. They do not provide predictions that agree with subsequent observations.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png
and so are not useful for us. Arrhenius did better back in 1906.
But is there any evidence that all the blood and treasure spent ‘improving’ them has had any effect? Are they getting any ‘less bad’ as time goes on?
Whenever I ask someone for any suggestion of a successful model, they quote Hansen of 1981, and try some handwaving to prove that being out by a factor of only 2 was in fact a triumph.
But 32 years later, has all the money spent on them not come up with anything better? Are we now trending to models that are ‘only’ out by 1.75 or 1.5 or (perish the thought) right?
If so ,where can we read about how this is being achieved?
And if not, WTF are we doing spending so much money on things that are destined to fail?
Albedo? Does anyone know how they handle albedo in the GCMs? It can change regionally over a few hours and at the North Pole, the combination of albedo and angle of sun, etc. would obviously be very important. Clouds certainly can affect albedo strongly but clouds are poorly understood. So, in the GCMs, do they use a single average value for albedo and change it once a year? Or do they use regional values and have it change monthly or seasonally (or continuously) and have it tied in with angle of incidence of sunlight and cloud formation?
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/13/19751/2013/acpd-13-19751-2013.pdf
Above is a new assessment of regional (and global) aerosol concentrations from quite a spread of US institutions. The take home message is that aerosol can only be understood by analyzing at a regional level given the very different (and often opposite sign) of the trends in each region.
The paper can be related to many recent discussions such as BC in the arctic and the role of aerosol in Atlantic internal variability. But given the focus on The Pause in this blog recently I thought the global trends over the past 30yrs were interesting. This paper essentially concludes that at a global scale there has been very little variability in AOD for the 30 years of the satellite era. Aerosols has been put forward as one of the possible causes of the recent pause, favoured by Hansen I think, the global estimates here suggest that that is unlikely. Maybe one less variable to worry about in the puzzle.
(There is a tonne of info here and generally accessible for an idiot like me)
It’s use as a fudge was predictable, as did Welikerocks and some foolish commenter @ the Blackboard years ago. Steve Fitzpatrick has been most elegant in his exposition of its use.
Albedo is the tuning knob.
===================
We knew it all along and Pekka confirms: Gaia is ‘of color’. Now don’t you think that ever-changing coat still veils her mysterious milieu interieure?
=========================
OK, is threading torqued or did I mess up that placement looking up Claude Bernard?
=========
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1659/oiio.png
That’s what’s governing (centrally limiting) Pacific Northwest North America climate.
Supplementary:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/scd_sst_q.png
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6451/1xx.gif (2-slide animation)
See Marcia Wyatt’s “stadium wave” work for background clarifying why the differential equation works.
There is your 3%.
whut
I need some help here. I am confused as to which category I belong: 3% or 97%.
I know what I believe: earth’s temperature for the last 3 1/2 billion years has been a bounded random walk. What bounds the temperatures are the oceans and their currents. The variability within those bounds are reflected in the paradigm articulated by Tsonis et al.
As you seem to be able to discern these things, maybe you can help me. Which category do I belong?
RiH008. Which category you belong in depends on whether you think changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere affect global temperatures. If you believe, like I do, that adding CO2 to the atmospehre increases global temperatures, then you belong with the 97%. However, I believe that somewhere around 50 to 100 ppmv, CO2 absorption becomes efectively saturated. So adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels causes global temperatures to rise, but the rise is so small that it is negligible
Is the earth warming with humans contributing?
They say
Yes – 97%
No – 3%
Judge yourself on that.
Jim Cripwell
From what I understand you to say, the climate responds to climate forcings linearly. As I understand what Edward Lorenz 1963 said, that climate, like weather, is chaotic and discerning climate forcings impact to predict the future was, shall we say, futile.
To be a member of this great club, do I have to accept that CO2 is the climate control knob? or just that CO2 has a global warming potential based upon the wave length measurements made in physics labs and credible scientists have not been able to measure that impact in our atmosphere.
From what I understand Chief to say, CO2 impact in a bistable climate state is negligible. CO2 only becomes an important actor in the climate drama at oceanic oscillation synchrony bifurcations when there is a potential for CO2 to impact abrupt climate change, the direction of which (warm, cold or the same) can not be predicted.
I see there is no category for agnostic and the data for me at least is just not available to make a commitment.
I feel like Oliver Twist…more data please.
Webby
A week ago didn’t Judith promise a piece by Marcia Wyatt that would knock our socks off?
tonyb
The Warmist in Chief on the Key Stone Pipeline:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/interview-with-president-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
NYT: A couple other quick subjects that are economic-related. Keystone pipeline — Republicans especially talk about that as a big job creator. You’ve said that you would approve it only if you could be assured it would not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon in the atmosphere. Is there anything that Canada could do or the oil companies could do to offset that as a way of helping you to reach that decision?
MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all, Michael, Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that thatâs true. And my hope would be that any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline — which might take a year or two — and then after that weâre talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 [chuckles] jobs in a economy of 150 million working people.
NYT: Yet there are a number of unions who want you to approve this.
MR. OBAMA: Well, look, they might like to see 2,000 jobs initially. But that is a blip relative to the need.
So what we also know is, is that that oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they canât ship some of that oil to world markets.
Now, having said that, there is a potential benefit for us integrating further with a reliable ally to the north our energy supplies. But I meant what I said; I’m going to evaluate this based on whether or not this is going to significantly contribute to carbon in our atmosphere. And there is no doubt that Canada at the source in those tar sands could potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.
There’s an interesting article in Nature Geoscience that say’s man burning all earth’s hydrocarbon’s would not likely result in run away global warming that would evaporate all the oceans.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1892.html
R. Gates, the Dogmatic Warmist, kindly lectures me that the melting ice does not “release heat” in the atmosphere. Generous of him, except I never claimed it did. I was making the point, obviously lost on him, that a question he asked earlier assumed knowledge for which he had no data. His various responses, in various locations here, proved that to be true.
The Dogmatic Warmist’s initial comment is here:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/27/open-thread-weekend-26/#comment-353174
âBased on the best current data we have, the total energy of the Earth system, summed across all spheres, has been steadily increasing for at least the past 30 to 40 years without pause, and closely paralleling the growth in Anthropogenic GH gases over this period.â
Notice the claim not just that the “total energy of the Earth…has increased for at least the last 30-40 years,” but that it has “closely parallel[ed] the growth in Anthropogenic GH gases over this period.”
So being an inquisitive skeptic, I asked where one could find the data showing this “close parallel” or correlation between “total energy” and GHG emissions. To know they were running parallel, it seems somewhat logical that you would have to be able to quantify both. So I asked the eminent Dogmatist where he found such data. His response:
“Oceans by heat content and sea level rise, cryosphere by total mass, and biosphere by total area all would indicate a steady to accelerating accumulation of energy in the Earth system.”
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/27/open-thread-weekend-26/#comment-353322
Follow the thread from that last comment, and you see the august WebHubThermageddonist chiming in:
“RG, a lawyer such as Gary shouldnât be expected to know how to do math-based physics such as calculating energy imbalances.” Web at least understood I was asking about calculations of energy imbalances. Calculations, not WAGs.
To make a long obscurantist story short, each time I asked for data showing this alleged “close paralleling” of the “total energy of the Earth system” with anthro GHG emissions, I am told how dumb I am for not knowing it is in the cryosphere and biosphere. When I ask how one can measure the “total energy” they contribute to the Earth system (admittedly in a sarcastic way), I am informed that of course they don’t. Which was of course the point of my rhetorical questions. But they don’t apparently teach logic in climate school, any more than they teach critical thinking.
AN OPEN LETTER TO BILL MCKIBBEN OF 350.ORG–
The Hadley Center email scandal was something I had dismissed. But this gem from Phil Jones changed that: “Bottom line – the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried. We’re really counting this from about 2004/5 and not 1998. 1998 was warm due to the El Nino.”
Yet there is still good reason to believe that people are influencing climate and that the climatic system is one that is sensitive. However, there is also good reason to believe that proponents of the climate change theory themselves have, in vino veritas, little personal inhibition to really do anything anyhow.
I started to realize this much myself when I visited World Wildlife Fund’s U.S. website and took the Carbon Calculator survey. Though I do not feel convinced in the climate change theory, my score of a 16 made me realize that a lot of the problem is well beyond my control anyways. You may want to take the same survey. Granted, someone who is an evangelist of the alarmisms of climate change does get to have a high score, knowing all the work and travel that goes into spreading the word.
However, there is one aspect of the climate change evangelist’s lifestyle where this excuse does not apply–and it is the same area which represents the bulk of my own carbon score. No evangelist of climate change can really convince me of changing what I do without committing himself to a strictly vegetarian lifestyle. Though there are some on the fringe of the AGW camp who do follow through, it is an ironic peculiarity that the vegan evangelists represent a small minority, and it is from there own websites and discussions that I have found the greatest opening in disputing any need for action on climate change whatsoever. You can actually look at a person and tell what he eats, and clearly, some of these climatologists haven’t given up on burgers and steak. The list of vegetarian celebrities is pathetic, most of whom I am not familiar, and there choices probably have little to do with environmental issues.
Not to forget what James Hansen said with this [inappropriate blogosphere adjective] comment, âI’ve almost become a vegetarian.â In other words, I’m not calling myself an ovolactovegetarian because I really haven’t given up on meat.
Please understand the weight of this inconsistency when you discuss this scientific issue; a review of a climate change evangelist’s lifestyle is a relevant point. Tiger Woods limits his cheating to women, not golf. So in the present era it is not so offensive for some to see him out there on the course at St. Andrews, but I think many people would take exception to the idea of Woods becoming pope. And that is the perfect analogy to this debate.
A recent Oxford Union climate debate with Richard Lindzen featured. Also participating, Myles Allen, David Rose and Mark Lynas. Good moderator too, whose pointed questions didn’t let Ljndzen get away with much.
Subjects discussed include “the powers” supposedly controlling the consensus and global scientific community, the 97%, uncertainty and precaution, futility of all current solutions and recycling, etc.
Rather late for Open Thread “Weekend” but this was some interesting resarch and findings that corroborates model output with real world measurements. This is related to the strength a the QBO and its decline over the past few decades:
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-tropical-upper-atmosphere-fingerprint-global.html#nRlv
Now interestingly, a side effect of the greater vertical lift being found in the tropics, in addtion to diminished the QBO, is the enhancement of the Brewer-Dobson circulation (BDC). The large circulation pattern that brings air from the tropics at very high stratospheric and even mesospheric levels has been projected (by models) to increase as GH gases increase. Another upshot of this is that the once projected tropical troposphere “hot spot” seems less likely, as in fact the warmer air is simply increasing the vertical lift over the tropics, leading to the results discussed in the article above. Very interesting.
It probably would have been a better idea to promote the stratosphere to mesosphere portion of the GHE instead of that tropical troposphere hot spot doncha know.
” While this circulation is so slow that a blob of air may take decades to travel to the upper atmosphere, it impacts the chemical composition of the global atmosphere because many chemical properties are very different in the lower and upper atmosphere layers.”
That part will be interesting to see explained in detail.
I’ve always be quite skeptical of the tropical troposphere “hot spot”. Those earlier models that showed it were quite incomplete in their BDC dynamics and the QBO as well, and the “hot spot” is greatly diminished when these are taken into account along with a general broadening of the tropopause north and south of the equator. In short- the energy for the hot spot is actually going up and out. This is being seen over significant time frames.
In regard to the “taking decades” for a “blob” of air to travel upward, during SSW events, we see a rapid upward motion of air at the equatorial stratosphere during SSW events over the pole. Air is rapidly descending over the pole and rapidly rising over the equator in the stratosphere over the course of just a few days– a teleconnected dynamic covering some 9000km that gives a quick acceleration to the BDC (and simultaneously affecting the QBO by way of diminishing the wind speeds)
補åã©ãã«: å æè³ãããããã¡ãã·ã§ã³ ã·ã§ããã³ã°äžåœã女ã®å dressesFeaturing ã¹ãŒãã®ããåœã³ã³ããã¹ãé æçãªå€å žçãªãŸãã¢ãã³ãªåãæ¥é°ã§ã«ãã£ãŠ: ãã€ã¢ã |2013 幎 7 æ 22 æ¥ – ã¹ã¿ã€ã«ã¯å人ã®ããã¡ããšããŠã¿ãªãããŠããŸãã人ã ã¯å人ã§æ§æãããç¹å®ã®å€èŠãæ©èœããããã«å¿ èŠãããã£ãŠãšãåœã®è£œé ããã°ããã¯ãå€æŽããŠãŒã¶ãŒã®ããªããé åçãªããã»ã¹çã®ãããªå€ãã®æ©èœãããªãç°¡åã«ãããŒã«è¢ãã人éã®ç®ã芳å¯ã§ãããããã¹ãŠã¯ãªã¢ ãã±ãããæã ã¯è²©å£²æ°éã§ãŸãã¯åå¥ã«ããµããªã¡ã³ãã®ç§éã®ã»ã¯ã·ã§ã³ãèŠãŠãããŸãã
ã¢ã«ããŒãè æèš
ãããããéåžžã®”å®å šã«èŠããããããã° ã¡ãã·ã¥ã®çµã¿åãããããããããä¿è·ãäžããŸããã¡ãã·ã¥æŽæ¿¯è£œåã¯æ¬åœããç§ãã¡ã®å€§åã¯æšæºçãªãã®ã¯ãåºäœããããããªãã奜ãã©ãã ããååãä¿æããŠããæ©èœã䜿çšããå³ãã䌞ã³ãããã«å°å·ãããŠããªãã®ãªã³ã©ã€ã³ ããžãã¹ã®ããŽãå¿ èŠãšããŸããã¹ãã¢ã補åãã€ãã³ãããŸãã¯ããã¢ãŒã·ã§ã³ã®ä»äºããã€ã¡ãŒãžã®åšãåºç¯ãªåœ±é¿ããããã©ããã¯ãçŽãåžããã°å°å·ã©ã³ãã»ã«ãäœæããŸããåžã売ã財åžã¯ééããªãããªãã®äººçã«å Žæå Žåã¹ã¿ã€ã«ãšã®ããã¯ã¯ãããã®ããã«ã
è æèš ã¬ãã£ãŒã¹
ææ©ãšèªç¶ã®ããã°ã¯ãã·ã§ããã³ã°ããŸãã¯å€åã¡ããã©éæŽã«æé©ã§ããé£æåã®çç£ã®è² è·ãæäŸãŸãã¯ã»ã¯ã·ã§ã³äŸçµŠããŠããããã è±ããªå²åŒãçºçããå Žåããªãã®ç 究ã«ã€ããŠããã°ã®ææããŠããŸããã°ããã®ã¹ã¿ã€ã«ã§å®éã«ããç¥ãããŠããã³ãŒã㌠ãã·ã³ã§ããã°ããè æèšãåžœåãã¢ã¯ã»ãµãªãŒãäžé§ãæäŸãã®æãæšæºçãªé ç®ã®ããã€ãã®äŒæ¥ã®éæ¹ããªãæ§ã ãªæäŸããŠããŸããäºæ¥ååŸè©³çŽ°æç»ã®åã«ãè¿ãããæåãããé«éã«ãµããŒãããããŸããããã¯äœã欲ãã rrn ããªãã®ã±ãŒã¹ã§ããïŒããã¯äœãã«æãçŽæ¥ã¢ã¬ã³ãžãéä¿¡ããçŽ 10 ç§ããããŸããæ£ãããååŸããèŠãªã確ãã«èªåã®æéãç¡é§ã«ããŸããã
ã¬ã¬ãã©ãè æèš
äœãç§ãã¡ã®å§çž®ã®ç¹å®ã®ã¬ãã«ã¯ none ã« 2 çªç®ã®ã¢ãŒãã¯ãŒã¯ãããªãã®åçããGIF ã JPEG ã ãã®ç»å圢åŒã䜿çšããŠäœæããŸãã
ãžã£ã¬ãŒã«ã¯ã«ãè æèš
ã¹ãããã³ã°ã®è¢ã䜿çšããŠãäžå€«ãåäŸã®ããã¡ãããããºããã¡ãã¯ãåçã®æšªæã€ããçµå±é »ç¹ã«æ±ããŠããŸããäž¡æ¹ãæ¥ç¶ããŠããé«å質ã®éŽã®ãŽã ããŒã«ãœãŒã«ã®ãã®ã¬ãŒãã¯ã©ãã§ããããœã³ã®ã¢ãŒã¿ããŒãã·ã¥ãŒãºã®äžã ãçªç Žãã¹ãšãŒãæ¢æ±ã¯è¶è²ããã£ããšé¡ããpingãäžãããã ã¹äž¡æ¹ãéžæããããšãã§ããŸããã
ãããªãã¯æã確ãã«æ£ããããšèšããŸãããç§ãå ¥ããŠãããã®ã¿ã€ã ãªãæ°žé ã«ãããªã³ã©ã€ã³ ãããã³ã°ã®åäŸãã¡ãççšããå¿«é©ã§å®å šãªèšæã®çµéšããããã®è¯ããè³Œå ¥ããæéãéããæéãèŠã€ããããšãã§ããŸãããå šäœçãªå¥åº·ã®åºã§ããªãã€ãªå·ã®äººãšçãã OWDY 欲æã®ææ¡ãããã£ãŒãªãŒã¯æ£ç¢ºã«ãããŠãããéããšãŠãæãã£ãããã«éåžžã«æåã®æéã®å€åœäººãšåœŒå¥³ãŸãã¯åœŒã¯åŸã« 50 ïŒ ãchilis ãèœãšããã䞡芪ã«äŒããä»ããã§ãã¯ã ãã§ãªããç§ãã¡ã¯ããªããšããªãã®å®¶æã®ããã€ããã° ã°ã©ãã£ãã¯ãå ±æããããããã¯åœŒãã®ããã€è¢ã§æã£ãŠãããïŒã¹ã©ã€ã ã·ã§ãŒã
2012èŠåŸæã¡äžãããŒã¹ãã¯ãã£ãæéŠããããå°è±¡çãªããããªé¡ã§ããããšãèµ·ãããéåžžã«åµé çãªãã¶ã€ã³ã¯ã倧ããªéèŠããããŸãããã ããå人垞ã«éŽã®ããã®æš©å©ã§ããã©ããªãã©ã³ãçŸãå¿ ç¶çã«ãçŸæç¹ã§ã¯ãè©Šåã«é©ãããããã¯ããããšãã§ããæå1èªèº«ã ãããã¯æ®éçãªåé¡ãç¶ããŠãåã«å¹Žéœ¢ã«æé·ã女æ§ã¯çµ¶å¯Ÿã«åœŒãã®å®èœANF倫ã®çŸããã®äžéšãšããŠãã³ãããã°ãåŽæãããããŒãããã°ã¯ãé çªã«ã¿ããªã«ã¢ããŒã«ïŒïŒé åçãªæ¹æ³ã«ã€ãæèŠã ãã§ãªãããã¡ãã·ã§ããã«ãªãã³ãããã°ã§ããããšãæé·ãããšãæµè¡ã®ããã¡ãã®ãããªãã®ãææããè³¢ãæ¹æ³ãšãªã£ãŠããããšã䞻匵ããããšã¯ééã£ãŠããªããã®ãšããŠã
ãæ°ãã 3 çŸãéãããšãã§ããæã ãããã®è£œé ãçæããŠããæ€ç©ããæ° Carcelle æåã§ãã匷åããããŸãã¯åœ±é¿åã®ãã顧客ã«å°éãçŽæ¥å¯Ÿå¿ããã¯é£ããã§ãã000 ã¯æ¬åœã«ã¡ãŒã«ã®åœŒã – åã ã®äœ¿ãæšãŠãèªã¿åãããšãã§ããŸãããšã»ãŒ 2 ã€ã®å€§åŠãåæ¥ãã 3 ã€ã®ãã©ãŒã¯ããäžããã³/ãŸã㯠$50 ç²åŸç㯠65 ïŒ ã§ã ïŒããŒã±ãã£ã³ã°ã®ããŒã«å®¢èŠ³çãã©ã³ã¹ãšã¹ãã«ã®éçºã¢ãããŒãããããããªãããããããšãåžæãŸãã¯çµæã確èªããŠãã ããã
åæã®è²¡åžã䌎ãããã ããšãä»ã§ãåžæã¯è¯ãååŒã®ä¿¡é Œæ§ã®é«ãå°åã®ã»ãšãã©ãããé©åãªãã³ãããã°ã§æ³šæå¯èœãªç¹å®ã®ãã³ãã«åºå·ããå¿ èŠããããŸããã§ã倧ããªè¢åªããããã€ãã®è¡äºã®ããã«ã¯éžæããå¿ èŠããããŸãæ éã«ä¿ã€ããšãã§ããŸãã6ãçè²ããããã©ã¹ãã㯠ããã° ïŒæ·±çŽ è²ãŸãã¯é»ãšçœã®è²ïŒ ã¯ãé£å梱å ããã³çºéã«äŸåã§ããŸããã第å ã«ãé åçãªç°å¢ã®æ±æãåå ã§ãããªãã®ããããã®é£åã¹ãŒãã±ãŒã¹ã«ç°¡åã«å解ãããã£ãŠãæã ããè¯ãèªãã¹ãæçã販売ãç·ã®å è£ æŸãèªã¿ã®ç¹æ§ã«ãã£ãŠã
ã«ã€ãšã©ãŒã«è æèš
ãã£ã³ãã¹ ããŒã ããã°ãŸããŸã人æ°ãéããŠããŸãããã®ã¹ã¿ã€ãªãã·ã¥ãªã®ã¢ãããã®äžã§ 1 ã€ã¯ãåçå¯èœãšãã«ã®ãŒãæäŸããŸããååã®ã¬ããªã« ãã©ã€ããŒã ã³ãŒãã«å¯ŸããŠæ¬æ Œçãªã€ã³ã¹ãã©ã¯ã¿ãŒ ãã³ãããã° ãã³ãããã°ããã§ãã¯ã®äžå¿éšã« 1 ã€ã¯ãç©äºã®ã°ã¬ãŒãã§ããè¿ãã®èŠ³æž¬ã«ããæ¬ç©ã®é人ãã³ãããã° ã©ã€ã³ãšçŸããçŽ æã®äžéšãçæ³çãªæ¢ããŠããå³äžãã©ã€ããŒã ã³ãŒãã®ãã³ãããã°ãšåç©ã±ãŒã¹ ã°ãã ããŒãããã° ã¬ã¶ãŒã32 æ³ã®åœŒã®å©äŸ¿æ§ãéã¶ä»»æã®ãããµã³ãºç¬éçãªã²ãŒã ã¯ããã§ãŒãžã³ã°ãããããšãã§ããŸããã³ãŒãã¯ä»ã©ã®ãããã®éãã¡ã³ã®è³ªåãååŸããŸãã
ã·ã£ãã«è æèš
ãããããªã³ãŒã€ã¯ãã³ã»ã³ã¹ãšã¿ãã ã£ããã圌女ã話ããçµéšã競æè ã«æãåºããããªã³ãžãŒããŒãã³è¥æºãããŠåã®ç©èªãæã£ãŠãããã¢ãŠãã£è·æ¥ãA4 ã®ç¬¬äºäžä»£ã®æã«åäœãããšããããµãã¹ã¯ã©ã€ããŒã¯äœ¿çšå¯èœãªã€ã³ããªã¢ç©ºéãšè§Šåªã®é åãé«ããããšã«äŒæ¥ã®é åãäžèŠ§è¡šç€ºããŸããã¢ãŠãã£ã¯ãweb BMW 3 ã·ãªãŒãºæããã«ã¡ã«ã»ãã¹ãã³ã K ã¯ã©ã¹ã«ã€ããŠã®å®è³ªã®ç«¶äºçžæãäœæããããšã§ãããã®é¢æ°ãæ£åžžã«çµéšããŸããã
ãžã£ã¬ãŒã«ã¯ã«ãè æèš
ãã®æèšã¯ãé«å質ã®å€å žçãªæ代ãè¶ è¶ããäœåã ããããããªãããã㯠ãã±ããã®å®è³ªçãªèšãã¿ãå«ãŸããŠããŸããäœåãªéé財åžãã¹ãªã åããŸããéåžžãã客æ§ããµã€ã³ã€ã³ã®ç解ã®ç¶æå¯èœæ§ããããŸãå®äºãšããŒãºã§è¡ããããžãã¹ã¯äººã®è©³çŽ°ã芳å¯ããå¿ èŠããããŸããEurohandbag ã®ãã³ã¹éŽã¯ä»ã®ãã¶ã€ããŒã®è²¡åžãŸãã¯ãã³ãããã°; ããä»»æã®éãã§ã¯ãªãã§ããå¹³åã¯ã©ã€ã¢ã³ããŸãã¯ãã³ãããã°æå¥œå®¶é »ç¹ã«åœŒãã®å¢çãçªç Žããããšããã¡ãã·ã§ã³ã®ãã³ãããã°ããªãŒãºããã«ãªäŸ¡æ Œã§æäŸãããããšã¯ã®ã¿ã
ãã«ãã§&ã¬ãããŒãè æèš
åžã売ããã¶ã€ããŒè²¡åžã¢ãŠãã¬ããã¯ã¹ã¿ã€ã«ã®ç¡éã®ç¯å²ãæäŸããŸããçå°ããµã€ãºãããªãããããã£ãšå€ãã®è²ãæ³åããããšãã§ããŸããçŒããããã«æãã®æ°ãã補åãšäžç·ã«ãªã£ãŠæ¬åœã«éããã«èª¬åŸåã®ããæ¹æ³ã¯éåžžããªãŒ ã» ããŒãåé åšãã©ã°ææãæ¢ããŠç§»åããŸããã ã» Casan ã¯åžžã«ãæãæåãããã¬ãŒããŒäºæ¥ã«é¢ããæ°ããæçåå²ç¹ã®è±ªè¯ãªéŽãŸãã¯ããŒãã®é©ç°çãªã¢ãã«ãæã£ãŠããŸãã圌ãã¯éåžžããªããçç£ããŠãããæ©ããæã«ã¢ããã€ã¹ãéæããããã«ããã©ã³ã®é«ãè©äŸ¡ãããŠããã³ãã¥ããã£ãåç §ããŠãã ããã
å³ããã§çœ²åååã¯å¥œãããŠããã®äžã«è¯ãçŽ æŽããããšã¹ã¿ã€ã«ã«ä¿ãæè¬ããŠããŸããç§ãã¡ç¢ºãã«èšãããã©ãã®è²¡åžã§å¢ãã€ã€ãããããªã¢ã«ã¿ã€ã ãã豪è¯ãªè·ç©ã®äžã§ãéèŠãªåžå Žã®èª²é¡ãå ããããŸããããªãã¯åºæ¬çã«ã¯æ¬åœã«åªããããã° ãµãã©ã€ã€ãŒã§ã®ãã®ã®ãã¢ã確èªããããã«ã¯ãæåã«ã次ã®æ®µéã¯ãã§ã㯠ãã©ã¹åœŒãã¯å®éã«è³Œå ¥ãææããŠããããšãã©ãã«éç¥ããããã«åºã¥ããŠããŸãããã¬ãã· ã«ãŒã ãã£ãªã¢ ã¢ãŠãã¬ãããããã£ãã¯ãããã³æŽ»æ°ã«æºã¡ããã¶ã€ã³ã®å¹ åºãéžæè¢ãçšæããè£ é£Ÿãã¶ã€ã³é¢šæ¯ããã以å€ã®å Žåã®æ°åãå«ãé£æååºã§æè²ãåããŠããŸãã
圌ã¯åœŒã®å€ãã®ä¿¡å·ãèŠã€ãããããªãã®æ人ã¯ç¶æããäºçŽãããããŒã ãšããŠã ãã§ãªãã¯ã«ã¹ãš Marinelli ã®äžã§åŒ·ãé²è¡ãæãä»ããåŒã³åºããèªã£ããããããåæã®ææ¡ã®ãã³ããã®å人ã¯ãŸãå«ãããã«ãšã¡ãªãŒæ¥œèŠ³çå³ãããè¿œå ããèšç»ããã®ããé¢ããŠã圌ãã¯éåžžã«çŽæ¥äŒæ¥ããåŸãŠå質ç©è³ªã§ãããŸãè¿ éãªã·ã§ããã³ã°ããã³è¯å®çãªèšªåãããµãŒãã¹ã®ãã©ã³ã¹ããŒã ãŠã§ã ã·ã§ããã«æ¥œããããšãã§ããŸããéŽãã°ãã 1921 瀟äŒã°ã«ãŒãã¯ãããªããšçžãŸã£ãŠå¥³æ§éåžžãããè³Œå ¥ãŸãã¯åéããŸãã
åžå£²ãã³ãããã° ã¢ãŠãã¬ããæ§åŒãæ¹æ³ããµã€ãºããã³æ³åã§ããããå€ãã®è²ã®ç¡éã®é åãæäŸããŸããæ¬åœã«ãæãåºæ¬çãªèª¬åŸåã®ããçŽ æŽãããæ¹æ³ããããåŸãããã«çŒããããã«æã補åãæŽæ°ããããšãã§ããè¡ãé£æåã·ã§ããã³ã° ããªãŒ ã» ããŒãå£ãã©ã°ããããŸããã²ãšã€ã®ãªãã§è¯ããã¬ãŒããŒã¯ãTe Casan é »ç¹ã®æž æœã«ã€ããŠåæçåå²ç¹ã®ãŽãŒãžã£ã¹ãªéŽã®éæ¹ããªãçš®é¡ããããŸãã圌ãããã£ããã¡ã®æ©æãã€é »ç¹ã«å£ã®èšèãéæããããã«åæ©çãªããã©ã³ ã»ãŒã ã³ãã¥ããã£ãçç£ããŸãã
圌ãã¯ã°ããŒãã«ã«æŽ»çšããé«åºŠãªæåãµãŒã¯ã«ãšå ±ã«ãããã®è¢ã§ãããã°ãã®äžæè°ã§ã¯ãªãã§ããç¹ã«èã®æå°åãååŸãããçµæãšããŠæ¹å”ãã¬ã³ã ã€ã³ããç·æ§ãšå¥³æ§ã®çèæ§é 匟åæ§ããã¹ãŠã®è¿œå ãåå ä»»æã®å·éãªã©çµæžçãªæ§é ãå€ææå¿åããã³ä»ã®æå¶ã«é¢ãã西åèãããªãèªèº«ã®å人ã§ã¯ãªãã€ã³ãã¬ã®ã®ã¢ã®äžã§ã Ugg ã¢ãŠãã¬ãããè¬çŸ©ãã·ã§ã€ã¯ ã€ããå ã®æ瀺çãªã·ãŒã³ã
ãã©ã€ããŒã ã㌠ãã¬ãŒãº rnallowsãoutsoucring ã®å©ããã¢ãŠããœãŒã·ã³ã°ãããªã»ã©ãŒãé«å±€ rnservice ãã£ãªã¢ããããšãã§ããŸããããªãã®äž»ãªã¡ãªããã享åããªããã«ã¹ã¿ãã€ãºãæãããš rnfeelããã©ã€ããŒã ãœãŒã ãœãªã¥ãŒã·ã§ã³æ§æãããŸãæãè€éãªä»¥æ¥ã»ãšãã© rnoffer é«åºŠãªã«ã¹ã¿ãã€ãºãã¯ã«ãŒãº ã³ã³ãããŒã«ã®ããã 1 ã€ã¯å®éã«ããªãã®è¿æã®ã¯ã©ãã ã¯ãã¹ãããã¯å®éã«ãã³ãã«ãéã¶éåžžã«äŸ¿å©ã§ããåæ§ã«æãç³ã¿ãããã奚ãä»ããã¥ãã¢çã¿åºã®ããã€è¢ãæã€ããã« ãã±ãããå€ãã ãã§ãªããããã亀æããããšãã§ããŸãç°¡åã«æ¶æ¯ãã湿ãããåžãæãããšã«ãã£ãŠããããã®ããç¥ãããŠããæ è¡ããã³éã®ç掻æ§åŒãå°ã人ã®æ¯èŠªã®æš¡å£ããŸããã¹ãã¬ãŒãžããã€ã¬ã¿ãªãŒäœãä»ã®åé¢ããŠãã人ãããã€ãã®éžæããã³ã³ããŒãã¡ã³ããæã£ãŠããããšã確èªããŸãããããã®ã³ã³ããŒãã¡ã³ãã®ä¿åããæŽçã®æå¹æåãè¢ã«ç°¡åã«ãŠãŒã¶ãŒã«åœ¹ç«ã¡ãŸããRSS ã®éäžã®å¢å ãå©çšããŸãã1 ã€ã®æ¹æ³ããã¬ã¹ ãªãªãŒã¹ãæäŸããGoogle ã®ã¬ããŒããš Web ãµã€ãã®ãã¥ãŒã¹ã®ãããªè²¡å£ãã¥ãŒã¹ ãã¬ãŒã€ãŒã«éãããšãå¿ ãã§ãã(A) ã¢ãã ã¡ãã£ã¢ã«ãã¬ã¹ ãªãªãŒã¹ãååŸãã;(b) èªåã§æ»ã£ãŠãªãã§; ãŠã§ããµã€ãé»åã¡ãŒã« ã¢ãã¬ã¹èŠæ±ããšã®æ§æã web ããŒãžã«ãªã³ã¯ãçºèŠããŸãã(c) ããªãã®äºé ã®ããã®ããå€ãã®å¯èŠæ§ããããŸãããã®ãŠã£ãŒã¯ãšã³ã㌠ããã¯ããã¯ã¯ããªãæ¬ç©ã®åžã®çå°ããäœãããŸããã圌ãã¯èšèšãããŠããã©ãããªåºé¢ãš 3 ã€ã®å éšãã±ããããã®äžåž¯ã®é©é±æ«ããã¯ãã㯠ã¹ã¿ããºæ¥œåã¹ãã©ããåªãããšæŽç·Žããšã¹ã¿ã€ãªãã·ã¥ãªå€èŠ³ãèªçºããããšãæ¥ããšãæ·»ä»ãããŸããèšãæããã¯ãã«æé·ããã家æã®ã¡ã³ããŒã®æãéåžžã«ã©ã®ããã«åœŒã®ããŒã ãåã£ãã®ããé²è¡éŠéœã
ãšãã©ãŒã«è æèš
ã¡ãŒã«ãŒã¯æ§ã ãªæ ªåŒãµã€ãºã®åºããã°ã®å€æ§ãªç¯å²ã¯ãããªããã·ãŒãªã³ã°è£œåã«ãããå Žåã«å®æœããã®ã«å¿ èŠãªãã¹ãŠã®ããã°ã®æ£ç¢ºãªé«ããšå¹ ãéžæããããšã§ãã©ããã³ã°æ°ã¥ãããã«æäŸããããã®äžã«è£œåãé 眮ããåŸãããŒã·ããŒã«ãŒã䜿çšãã次ã®æã§ãããå°å°ãäžåºŠç·©ããã«ãã£ãŠæåãããã°ã40ïŒ ãšãã«ãŒã³ãã圌ãã¯ãŸããéé¢ãŸãã¯å±éããé»åããã¯ãä¿è·ãããã€ã¯ãããéæ°ãæã£ãŠåã«ã§æžãããäŸãå«ãããã«ã¯ããããã®ããŒããŠã§ã¢ãããã«ä»å±è£ 眮ããããæ¥ç¶ãååŸããªã³ã©ã€ã³ã®äžçã®ãã¹ãã¯ãã®ã¢ãªã³ã°ââ圌ã®ããŒã¿ãæ©åšãå容ããããã¯åã«ã»ãã¥ã¢ç¶ããŠããŸããããã«ãããªãèªèº«ãžã人çã¯ããªããã®ã§ãçããŠããããšã§ããåçŽã«éãã§ã¯ãªããããé »ç¹ã«è©°ã蟌ãç§ãã¡ãäœäžããããªãã®æ¹æ³ã®å åŽã«ç«ã£ãŠããã移åãŠãŒãã£ãªãã£ãšããŠãæé·ããŠããã ãã§ãªããå€æŽãè¡ãããšããæç©ãææŸãããã°ããã®ãã¡ãã·ã§ã³ã·ã§ãŒã¯ã豪è¯ãªèŠçŽ ã䜿çšããã«æ©æã«æ¥è§ŠããåŠçãäœãããšãã§ãã瀟äŒçå®è·µãæã£ãŠããããšã«ãã£ãŠå€§åŠã®ãã£ã³ãã¹ã§ååŸããŸãããââãå®å šã«é«çŽåãµãã«ãŒã®ç·Žç¿ãåæ¥ãããããã®å€ãã®åªããæ©èœã®è¯ãäŸã§ããããã§ããããšã«æ³šæããŠãã ããããã¹ãŠã®æ©åšã«ã¯ã2ã€ã®æå ãå€åå¿ ãããã€ãã®ä»ã®äººã®ãã©ãŒã åã®ã³ãŒã¹ããããŸãããä»ã®è¬ã¯éåžžã«æ害ãªåœ±é¿ãéããŠããŸããã”ZIP”ã䜿çšããä»»æã®ããã°ã¯ä»äºãã¯ããã«å°ãªããæã ã¯äžã«çœ®ãããããæ©äŒã«å¿«é©ã«ãªãã ãããç¡æ°ã®å¯æãããã°ãåžå Žã«éããŠããŸãã圌ãã¯æ§ã ãªçš®é¡ã®ç®çã®ããã«acââustomedã§ãã©ã¡ããååŸå¯èœã§ãããè¢ãéå§ãã©ã³ãã»ã«ããåŒåœã販売ããè¢ãäœã§ãããã§ã¯ãªããã
ãã«ãã§&ã¬ãããŒãè æèš
ããªã¹ãæã® Louboutin ãã 140MM(Black) éŽåã奜ããšå¥³æ§ã«ãã£ãŠç°ãªã察人çãšææ çã«é¢äžããŸããããžãã¹ç£ç³ããããã«éåžžãããã°ã¡ãŒã«ãŒãå éšãã¹ãŠå¥³æ§äžé§ã¿ããã§ããã€ãã®ãŸãšããªã㢠maded ãããŠãããããã§ããäž»ã«äºæ ã®åããéåžžããã«æ»ããããå Žæã«æè³ãããããã®ã»ã¯ã¿ãŒãä¿å䜿çšãããŸããå Žåã¯é©åãªæé·ãéããŠãã®çèããã³åœŒãåæ©ãšããŒãº ãšã³ãã¯ãŒã¡ã³ã ãã¬ãŒãã³ã°ããã«ãã°ãã°æãããã¹ãŠã®åœŒãã¯ãŸãè¡ã£ãŠãããã®ãšããŠã¯åé 1 ã€ãå¥ã®ããŒã ãååŸããã ããèšç·Žã§ããŸããA ããããæè³ã幎éãšèããããŠããŸããæ®å¿µãªããšã«ãã¹ãŠã®äŒæ¥ã ãã§ãªã IFAs ããã³ Supplliers) ãèšç·Žã¯èª°ãæé«ã®å¹çãåç §ããŠãã ããã«ã³ã³ãµãŒãã§äºãããšã人ã ã«ãã£ãŠäœæãããŸãããªãŒã¹ãã©ãªã¢ flatsoled ããŒã ã°ãã ãã¬ãŒããŒã«é¢ããŠå³æ Œãªãã£ãªãŒã«ãäžèšãšæ¯èŒããŠããªãé©åºŠãªããã§ãããŸãããããããããã®ç©ãããªèå£ãéæããå¿«é©ãã®ã¬ãã«ãåçã§ããå¿ èŠããããŸãã䜿çšãããã¡ãªãçŸããæ¥ããããã®æ¥ 200 é²æ©ããå€ä»£ãªãŒã¹ãã©ãªã¢ã®äœæããŸããåºããéåžžã«ç¿Œã«å€ãã®å Žåã貿æèŠæš¡ã®æè³ãè¡ã£ãç¶ã㊔åŸåããäœ yr”ã®äŒçµ±çãªèœã®äžã§ç«ã¡åŸçåéšæ°ããåªäœã¯äžããé©æ°çãªã¢ã€ãã¢ãå³åº§ã«å€æŽããšããªããã®ãå®çŸããããã«ããªãã解æŸããã®ã«ååã§ããããŒãã£ã« ãã¶ã€ã³ ã·ã§ãŒã§ãšãŠãå¿é ãç¶æããã®å éšæµã chap èšèšäžã®å¶çŽã蚪åè ããŸããã¯ããã«ãããªãã®ææã®å€æŽã«é¢ãããã«ããAAPL ã®çŽ 14% ããžãã¹ ã³ã³ãããŒã«ãã¢ãã€ã« e ã³ããŒã¹ã«é¢ãã 90 ïŒ ä»¥äžãã°äžã°ã« andriod 幎åã«äœæãããã®äºãæããŠããã®ã§ãè¡ãããã§ããããæåãããã®æ»ã«ãã³ããŠãããE ã³ããŒã¹ã®åæ¹æ¹æ³ã§ã Andriod AAPL åŸã ã«ã¢ãã€ã« ããã«ã«ãªãããšãèŠãŠããªãã®çµ¶å¯ŸçãªåèŠåºãã«é害ãæ§ç¯ããããããšããäœæããå®éã«æºåž¯é»è©±ãèªèããŸããã
è æèš æ¿å®
å倧ãªã¯ããã£ãããšããªãåæ§ã«åœŒãèªèº«éåžžã«ã¹ãŒããŒããã·ãŒãºã³ã§æ¹æ³èäžä»¥æ¥ 2006幎äœãããå¿ èŠããããŸããã«ãã©ãŒã ããããããªããéžæèããããèèªã®å¹³åãäžåã 148 æéçŽåå£ã®ãµãã«ãŒãååŸããŸããå§åã®çš®é¡ã¯æ°ããã²ãŒã ãã¹ã¿ãŒ ãã£ã« ãšã¡ãªãŒã¯ 1 ã€åœŒã®é«å質ã®åªå é äœã«é¢ãããä»ããŠãããäœã£ãçç±ã¯æé ãªäŸ¡æ Œã®æ»æçãªåçãŽã«ããåŸãã«ã€ãªããããªã 2013幎ãå·ã€ããŸãããããã®ããŒããªãŒ ã³ã³ã»ã³ãã¯å®éã«ããªãã®å ãšéåžžã«ãããã決ãä»ããããã®ãã ãªããéžãã ã®å¯Ÿå¿ã§ããæãçŸããéããå質ã§ããããã£ãŠãå€ã®ç¯å²ã®å©çšã§ããŸããããŒããªãŒ ã¹ã㢠ã¢ãŒã«é«éœ¢è 補åã¯ãªãå®äŸ¡ãã€é«å質ãªææããäœæãããŸããå®ããã£ã³ãã¹ ããã°ã¯ãå åŽã«æã人æ°ã®ãããªãã·ã§ã³ ããŒãããã°ãè³Œå ¥ããŸãããŸããããŒã«ã®äœæã§ãããããã®è¢ã§ã¯ãªãç°å¢ã«ãããããªãã·ã§ã³ã§ãããã©ããè¡£æçŽ æã®æäŸã«å¿ èŠãªè£œåãšããŠãã¹ãŠã®ããªãã®è²Žéãªç®çãæºããæ¯æ¥ãå°å£²åã«è²·ç©ãããããšã確èªããŸããè¯ãããªããã ãã©ã³ã ã°ãã倧ããé²æ©ããæ¹æ³ ïŒãããè°è«ã®äœå°ã®éžæè¢åœ±é¿åã®ãããã¢ã¹ã¿ã€äœå® ãšããŠåäœããŸãããã¹ãã»ã©ãŒã®ã€ã¿ãªã¢ã®ãã©ã³ãåã£ãæåã®ã¹ããã ã°ãããªæç¥ã«ãã£ãŠãã£ã¬ã³ãã§æ¹æ³ã§ 1921 幎ã«ã圌ã¯ãã®å¹Žã«ã°ããã®ããã£ãã¯ããªãŒãã³åå¿è ã®ãããåçåãããè¢ã¯ãŸã äžç®è£è¶³æ Œå¥œè¯ããšã ãããããšããªãããã«å¹³å¡ãªããªãããªãããŒã«è¢ããšã³ ãã¬ã³ããªãŒãªããã¯ããã¯ã¯ãå®æçã«æ¥œããããšãã§ããŸããä»ããŠå®å šãªçµè«ã®æ¹åã«é ç¹ã«ä¿ã圌女ç¥ã£ãŠããæååã§ãã補é å ãå®å šã«é 眮ããããããã®æã®ããã°ãšããŠãåãèå³ãšããŠããäºãã«è°è«ãç¶æããããã«ååãªæ å ±ãäžããŸãã
ãã³ãžã³è æèš
ããã¯éåžžã«é«çŽè»ãããããã isn’t ä»»æã®ãªã³ã«ãŒã³ã¿ãŠã³ã«ãŒã¯æžæ¿æ¶²ãå¿ èŠããããŸããéåžžã«ã·ã¹ãã ã¯é£ããå¯èœæ§ããããŸãåæžããŸãããªã³ã«ãŒã³è»ã®å Žæã®ããã®è骚è¡æãåé€ããå¿ èŠãããå Žåã¯ç¡å¹ã«ãã¹ãæžæ¿æ¶²ãã³ãæåã ãæå³ããããšãã§ããã®ããŒãã«é¢ããå€èŠ³åŸéšé©ããããããäž»ãªç®çãšããŠç¶æãããªã³ã«ãŒã³èªæ²»äœè»ã«å¯ŸããŠäžæããã空æ°ã®ããã¯ã¹ã¯ãééããªããé žçŽ ãåé€ããããšãã§ããŸããœãŒã¹ãã¹ãŠã®æåã®è¢ãšãã«ã¹ã¿ã å°å·ãžãããŒã®ã€ãããã³ã補é ã®æ©äŒã¯ããªãã 15 ã®ã»ãŒãã¹ãŠã®è£ 眮ã®ããã®æéã®ããã€ãã®é 10 ã§ãã確ãã«ããŠãã ããããªã³ã¿ãŒãéžæããŠè·ç©ãæ¥ãå¯Ÿç §çã«ç·æ¥æ§ãããå Žåæ¬ãå°å·ããåã«ãã¹ãŠã®åŒã³åºãã¯è¢ã·ãªã³ããŒã¯äœãåºããããã³ã«ããŸãã¯å°å·äžã«ããã°ãéã¶ããšæã ã¯ããã©ãŒã ãå€æŽã§ããªããããããããå€ãã®å©çãå°å·ããããšãã§ããªãåŸã£ãŠæ³å®æ©èœããã¹ãæžå¿µã ãã§ãªããåé¡ããŸããç§ã¯ããªãã®æ°ããã¬ã·ããæäŸããŸãããŠã§ãããŒã¿ã«ããç§ã®ã»ãã«çºçããŸããããã¡ãã·ã§ãã¹ã¿ã㯠1 æéã§æ¬åœã«å¹žãã«ããããšãã§ããŸãããŸãã¯ã®ã§ç§ãã¡ã®ç©ºæž¯è²šå¹£ã殺ãããã«ç®¡çãŸã 亀æžåã«ã»ãŒãã¹ãŠã®åœŒãã®æ ã®åŸã«åã«è³Œå ¥ãããéãã¯ã¹ããSBTãã¢ãã«ãã© ã» ããã³ã²ã¹ Desigual ã«å ããŠã³ããå·ãšã¬ã©ãå€ãã®ã·ã§ãããéžæããŸããæ ç» Desigual åºã掻æ°ã«æºã¡ãã«ã©ãã«ãªãŸããå€ãã®éå±ã®è±ªè¯ãªèŽ æ²¢ãã©ã¹ absoluetly ãéžæãã人ã®å®¶äººå·¥ç®é©å°é£ç¹å®ã®ããã¯ã«ã5 貚ç©ã®ã³ã³ãããŒå 足åºã®è²·ãç©å®¢ã¯ããã㯠securer ãåçµã®ææŠã§ãéµç©Žã®ã¡ãã£ã¢ãé©åãªæãçãŠã®äŸåããŸãã
ã³ã³ããŒã¹æåŸ ç°ãªã人ã®å®¶æã®ç·æ§ã女æ§ãåäŸãçããããã®è£œåã«éãã©ã³ã¯ ãšãªã¢åºè人ã ã¯åºåããã³éèŠãªããŸããŸãªéŽã®ã¹ã¿ã€ã«ãç°¡åã«èªåã®è¶³ãäžèŽããäœè£ãããããå€ãã®å¿«é©ããæ¯èŒãããšãã®ãããªéžæãããã³å€ãçè²ã«å€æã§ããŸããã¹ããŒãã®äžçã®åšãã«ãä»ã¯æ¥ã®ä¹çµå¡ã¯ãŸããã®ã³ã³ããŒã¹ ããžãã¹ ããŽåœŒãã®ããŒã ã®ã©ãã ãéŽã奜ãã®é åã¯ãããã«å¿«é©ãªæµã¿ãã¿ã°: 123, 123 ã® 123Key ååç©ã§ 123 ãåãåã³ïŒ ãã«ã®ãã ã» ã³ãŒã«ãã³ |2013 幎 7 æ 24 æ¥ – éçºå°æå®çšæ§ãããŠãŸãããŒã æ瀺補åãåã«ããªããæ瀺ããå¿ èŠããããŸããå人çãªæ©äŒã«ã€ã³ãã§ããªãã®ã²ã¹ã ããŠã¹æž©æåååŸäžç·ã«èšå¿µæ¥äŸãã° eidããã£ã¯ãªãã¯ãªã¹ãã¹ãªã©ã®ãç¥ããå¿ããŠã¯ãªããŸãããå®å šã§æ¥œããç©è³ªå¿ èŠããããŸãããã¿ã°: 123, 123 a: ãã«ã®ãã ã» ã³ãŒã«ãã³ã®æ¹æ³æå°ã® 123 ã®è±åœã«ãã£ãŠ 123Immediate |2013 幎 7 æ 24 æ¥ – ç§ã® 2 çªç®ã®æ·ç©ãèŠããŸãããç§ã¯èš±ãããŠããã«ããäžäººã²ãšã倱ããã doesn’t ã§ãããã©ããã«ãããããããã¹ãŠãããŸãè¡ã£ãŠã»ããããã©ã®ããã«ã話ãé°ã®æ··åç©ã«ã€ããŠã¯ããã³ãŒã ãµã³ãã«ã®ãã®æä»çãªåæããèªç±ã«äœãããšãã§ããä»ãªãèªã¿èŸŒãŸããŠããè²ã䜿çšããŠé®®ãããªèšåãšã®æ¹æ³ã¯ååŸæãå³æ Œã«ã¢ããŒã«ããã€ããã§ãããã®ã®æãæçãªçµã¿åããã®ããã«ä¿¡è ã®ãæåãéæããããã«ç£çãªãŒã©ã®ç°ãªãäŸ¡æ Œã芳å¯ããããšã®éèŠãªèŠåç¯å²ã§ããæã ã¯ãã£ãã«ãªãæããã³ãŒã ãµã³ãã«ã®ãããŸãããèªèããå¿ èŠããããŸãã次äžåºŠã«ããã«ãè³Œå ¥ããŠãããæ¬åœã«ããããä¿èšŒãªã©ã¯ãŒãŒã·ã§ã³ãšãè¶ ããŠæ¯æ¥ããã¹ãŠã®ãããŒã¯ãéµäŸ¿ãµãŒãã¹ã®åŽé¢ããããŸããããã¯ééããªãã³ã¹ãã¬ã§ãªããŸããã»ãŒãã¬ãŒãã奜ã personating äžè¬çãªãã£ã©ã¯ã¿ãŒã«é¢é£ä»ããããŠããããããããæ ç» toons ã®è¡£è£ ã«èå³ãããéåžžã®è¡£è£ ãäœã£ããã®ãšå¥åŠãªãŸãã¯æ§çãªæŽ»åæ¹æ³åå è èªåã®ãã£ã©ã¯ã¿ãŒãšã®ç掻ã楜ããã§è¡šç€ºãäžå¿ã«å±éããŸãã
ãã®ç¹å®ã®å¯èœæ§ããããŸããè圌ããéãæè¡è ãå«ãåçŽãªãã€ã€ãŒã®åŸã®æ²»çã§ãããã«ã€ããŠæžããããåä¿¡ã«èŒªéã§ãããã£ãããã®æè¡è ã«ã¢ã¯ã»ã¹ç§ãã¡ã«å ãäžèšã®ææžçã®äžã§å¹ççãªã¯æ¬åœã«ã圌ãã¯ããã«å€§ããªèããããããšãã§ããŸããããªããæããããå Žåã¯ããã®ç¹å®ãã©ãã« ããªãŒã®ç§ãã¡ã®æ¹æ³ãããããšãã§ããŸãæ Œå®ã³ãŒã財åžæ¯ 2 5 è²ã ãããã«èŠã€ããŸãã7 ã€ã®ç掻ããŸãããã¹ãŠã®æ§ã ãªãµãŒãã¹ã䜿çšããŠæãå¯èœæ§ã®é«ããã®éé žåæ°ŽçŽ ã®ã¹ãã³ã±ã¢ãèªçºããå 補åã¯ãããããã¬ã³ãã©ã³ã ãµãã¡ã€ã¢ ïŒãã©ãã ã±ãŒãž ã㢠ã¢ãŒã¯ lgt)ãéµäŸ¿çªå· ïŒãã€ãæ°éãšã«ãã³ 4Christian ã«ãã¿ã³è²©å£²ã³ãŒã ãã³ãããã° ïŒéŒããã²ã³æããïŒãBriteSmile ïŒã¬ãœãªã³æ¶²æ¶/LED ã©ã³ã)ãã〠㻠ã¹ããªãŒãã® LaserSmile ïŒBiolase ãã©ã¯ã·ã§ãã« ã¬ãŒã¶ãŒ)ãã¬ãããžã§ãŒãã³ã LumaArch ïŒããã²ã³ ã©ã€ãïŒããã¯åŠæ ¡æäœãå«ããã¹ãŠã®ãã®ã§ãç ç³ã®æ¯ãããªãå¯èœæ§ã®ããæéã«ãªã£ãŠæ°åã®ã¯ãªã¹ãã£ã³ã« ãã¿ã³ã®éŽã®ãã¹ãŠã®çš®é¡ã®å€è²ã¢ããªã¹ãåŸåãããããªãèªèº«ã®æšæºã«ãŒãã³ãå€è²ãéæãç¶ãã人ã®ãããããã¯ãã®äœæ¶²ãã¢ã³ããŒç®ã®åºãŠããã®ã§ãã4. 2 æªäœ¿çšãã£ãŒããã° ïŒèªå® ã§ã®å¯ãæã£ãŠäººã ã®ããã®è³Œå ¥ïŒ ãé£çµ¡ããŸãããã£ãã 31 ç§æ°·ã®æ°Žã§ã«ã€ããŠããªããœ-çå解æ§ãžã£ã±ããè¢ãæ瀺ããããããã®å©ç¹ããããŸãããªããœ-çå解æ§ããªã㌠ãã£ã³ãã«è£œåããªãµã€ã¯ã«ããæçµè£œåãæäŸããªãåŠå®çã«åœ±é¿ãäžããŸããäœæããªãµã€ã¯ã«ããå®éã«ç¹å®ã®ç¶ç¶çãªæ·»å ç©ãéã¢ã¯ãã£ãåããŸãã
è¯ããã³ã㯠10 MB ãããªã«é¢ããã»ãŒãã¹ãŠã®åã§ãããªãã¬ãŒãã£ã³ã° ã·ã¹ãã ã«é¢ããè¿ éãã€å§çž®ã®æé ã衚瀺ãããªã³ã©ã€ã³ã®ãã¥ãŒããªã¢ã«ããããŸããã«ã¡ã©ã®åŠ»ãŸãã¯å€«ã®äžæ£è¡çºãé²ããããã€ã³ã¹ããŒã« ã«ã¡ã© ããã£ãŒ ã» ãã¢ã¯å€ããèºèºããã¿ãŒã²ããã«ããžãã¹ããå¿ èŠããããŸã家ããããé²è¡ãæ倧éã®ä¿è·ã®äŒæ¥çµ±åèŠå ±ã·ã¹ãã ã«éåè·¯ãã¬ã (CCTV) ã«ã¡ã©ãæäŸããŸããããã¯ã»ãšãã©ãããã®åå°ã®è³Œå ¥ã§ããå人æè³å®¶ã®çæ§åå¹³æé¿é£æããã«ãäœå® 建èšãè³Œå ¥ãææãåå¹³ã調æŽããéœåžãæã®äœæ°ã§ããŠã§ãäžã®ã³ãŒã念é ãã®åå¹³ã¯ãŸã£ãŠããã»ãšãã©å€åœäººã«ç解ãããŸããæã朮å·ç§ãã¡ 4 ã€ã ãã®æ¹æ³åºæãæã®éå§ããæ¥ãŠã¢ãŠãé¿é£æãæ¢ããŠããäŒæ¥ã«ã Ming ã®éèŠãªåœ¹äººãèšã£ããæãæã®äºä»¶ã§æ¥ä»ã§äžè¶³ããŠãããç ŽæããŠããäŒæ¥ãããããšããŠããŠããŠè²¬ä»»ããããææ人äºä»¶ã®éçºè ããã«ãããããããããã®çºã®è°å¡ã®è£åã®å±ãç¯å²ã®å»ºç¯æ¥è ã匷ããçŽ æŽãããæ倱ã«åŸåããããŸãããã«é¢é£ããŠããã®äŒç€Ÿã¯éåžžã«æ¿æãç ŽæããŠããŸããçºãšã°ãŒã¯ãã£ãã®ãšèãããã¬ãŒããŒæè³å®¶ãæãèšãéãã ãã§ãªããå æ ãããŸã£ãŠçãããã·ããªãªã«é¢ãããšã°ãŒã¯ãã£ããšåãããšãæåŠããŸããã
ããã°ã«é¢ããŠå€æ°ã®å¿ èŠãããã§ããããå Žæããã¹ãŠã®ãããã®å€ãã®å¥³æ§ã®ããã®ãã®ã§ãããŸããå€æ°ã®å°éè·ã®ç·æ§çšã®ããã°ã§ãã1 ã€ã®ä»®æ³äŸè °è¢ç·æ§ã«é¢ããã³ã¬ã¯ã·ã§ã³ã«çœ®ããŸããããã bookbag æ¬åœã«ããžãã¹ ã¹ã¿ã€ã«ãŸãã¯å€å 1 ã€ãæäŸå¿«é©ãäžããèå¯ã®ããã«å¯ŸåŠããŸãããã®ãã¹ãã³ ã» ãã«ãŒã€ã³ãºã«ããŒã¹åå£ç¯ãã€ã¯ Milbury äžç·ã«èº«ã眮ãã¯åºå®¢ãå·è¡è ããã³æºè¶³ç©æ¥µçãªéžæã«å©çšå¯èœãªåžå Žæ°·ã®äžã1 ã€ã®èšæ¶ã«æ®ãè©Šåã圌ã¯æ°·ããé¢ããŠç©äºã®åãšããŠåœŒèªèº«ã蚌ææžå©çšè ã«ããã¬ãã· ã¬ã©ã¹ ã¹ã¿ã³ãã§ã«é¢ããŠç»ããæ¬åœã«åœãã£ãŠåœŒè³Œå ¥ããéŽã® 1 ã€ã«åæã«è² ããªããã¡ã³ã«é¢ããŠãMilbury ã¯å人çãªäžæå€ãã® 3 ã€ã® NHL ãã©ã€ã¢ã¹ãªãŒãã®éã§è€æ°ã®ã²ãŒã ãŸãæ¯åº $500 眰éãã»ãŒãã¹ãŠã®äºä»¶ãã³ãã¥ãã±ãŒã·ã§ã³ç 究ã¯ãã¹ãŠã®é£çµ¡å ã®ç解äŸåé¡ãã㣠ãžã§ã¹ãã£ãŒã7 ïŒ ã®åèªãæ¯æãã圌ãã®æ¹æ³ã®ããŒã³ã§ 38 ïŒ ããå¿ èŠããããŸãäœã®æšªã« 55 ïŒ ãšåããŠããŸãããã³ãã³ ããèªåçã«ã¯ããªãåŸãªãããªãã®çŸåšã®äºèšã£ãæ®åœ±ã¹ã¿ããå 55 ïŒ ã§åº§ã£ãŠããŸããå¯èœãªåœŒã¯åœŒã®è²¢ç®ãŸãã¯å€åä»ã®äººããã®å¯ä»ã®é¡ãšäœã®åå¿ãåç §ããŠãã ãããåžå ŽãŠããããæŸã£ãŠããããå Žåã®å®¹æã«äœçœ®ã®éžæããã¹ãŠã§ã芧ã«ãªããŸãããããã®ã¬ãã¥ãŒã確èªãããã®ãšãã®ã»ãšãã©ã«ãªãããªãã®ããŒãºã«åãããŠé©åãªãããè©äŸ¡ãããªããã°ãªããªããŸãä¿¡é Œã§ããç§éãã¹ãŠå¹æçãå€ãã®ãã¬ã³ãã£ãªã°ãããããå±éŽå éšã®è³Œå ¥ã®ããã®ããã ã¬ã€ã ã¹ãã¢ã®å¢çã®å ã§ãéŽã¯æé«ã®çŽææã«é¢ããŠå¿ èŠãªå ã§äœãåºãããæé·ããŸããã