Sarah Palin doesn’t even believe global warming is man made, and she certainly doesn’t give a flip or a flop about polar bears. What is McCain thinking?! Is he so desperate to suck up to the right wing extremists that he would sell his soul — no, give it away for free — to win?!

I think Mccain is pretty open to global warming and things but he’s 72. Should he pass away in office the ultra right wing women he has selected as VP will destroy all achievments we have made so far.

3mta3, dl! truth hurts! But as of lately republicans are in a diffrent realm of reality!

Thursday NASA just release new report on global warming: Basic results conclude with evidence that Asian pollutants drifting over the United States are responsible for summertime heating with an expected further 3% heating effect by 2060.

Joe … don’t worry about McCain dying and Palin becom8ing President … he only has to make it 4 years … and then Hillary Clinton will be our greatest President yet!!

Yes, McCain has shown himself open to science and some environmental protection in the past, but he has also gone the other way with voting against auto efficiency standards, etc. He has also gotten much more conservative now that he is pandering to the Republican base, and his choice of the anti-science, anti-environment Palin is a serious problem.

If you want to protect the environment, vote for the guy who STARTS with that position instead of occasionally flirting with it.

The World Meteorological Organization says the first half of 2008 was the coolest in at least five years. It expects 2008 will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average. The United Kingdom Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Change says data shows worldwide temperatures have declined since 1998.

A scientist with the WMO says, “We can expect with high probability this year will be cooler than the previous five years.”

“What environment?”
Sarah Palin

Harley Davidson…. Here is the actual quote:

The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century. [...] “For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming,” World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature “anomalies”.

“What environment?”
Sarah Palin
================================
Palin is smart enough to understand that the twenty plus volcanoes in her home state spew out more co2 than all the vehicles and all the factories on earth combined.

Does Obama know how to spell environment?

The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century. [...] “For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming,” World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature “anomalies”.
=================================

Sorry, you’re out of date old boy. I read that report. And if you believe the UN on anything I can see why you vote democrat. Info I gave is from this past Thursday.

HarleyDavidson: “…the twenty plus volcanoes in her home state spew out more co2 than all the vehicles and all the factories on earth combined.”

The fact that you would swallow and regurgitate this obvious lie does not bode well for your credibility.

Furthermore two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth changes in the sun.

One report from National Geographic News asserts, “Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural and not a human-induced cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.

Data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005 disclosed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps near Mars south pole had been shrinking for three consecutive summers. Evidence suggestion that the sun is causing warming in and of itself.

HarleyDavidson

Year to year fluctuations have nothing to do with climate change.

I would rather be wrong about the cause and do something about global warming than be right and do nothing.

jock59801

Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year

HarleyDavidson

Nobody ever said that the sun isn’t a factor. Of course it is. The global climate is extremely complex and is affected by many things, including solar output and greenhouse gasses.

Harley but valcanos reduce global warming because they spew stuff into the air that reflects sunlight, also Your right valcanos do put it in the air but on top of that you have all the co2 we are emmiting. THINL ABOUT IT!

SO we shouldn’t even try is that what they are saying? THey don’t care if you can’t see blue sky anymore? What happened to republicans?

Drill Baby Drill!

The Republican National Convention Mantra

Absolutely, Joe, humans are no innocent primates in the co2 story. We have to do better and the Asian subcontinent and Russia really has to their part as well.

Sorry lads gotta get back to work. Gotta go.

Jock, as I’ve said before, global warming IS a partisan issue. Most, if not ALL the causes that the “scientists” say all have a link to the Republican party.

Even though 70% of our oil is imported from the Middle East, the “scientists” and Al Gore blame AMERICAN oil companies–”Big Oil”–which is linked to the Republicans. The auto makers too are considered part of the Republican base.

I hardly believe that McCain was EVER in favor of the global warming activists, especially since he was absent every time there was a vote on the issue.

As long as the accusing finger is ALWAYS pointed at the Republicans Jock, you’re not going to find very many Republicans jump on the global warming bandwagon and the issue will ALWAYS be partisan.

ivan12356

Well, I think that the American oil companies are not that big a percentage of the global oil market anymore, not that it is relevant here. The burning of fossil fuels is doing harm no matter who does it.

And yes, McCain DOES agree we need to take action on global warming. It is great that both candidates are on board now.

We can “take action on global warming” all we like. You middle class crybabies will pay the bills and the earth will remain unchanged. Ask the Germans and English how much the planet’s temperature changed after they spend their first few hundred billion tax dollars!! ..and change to what? Has your hero al gore told you what the climate is supposed to change back to yet? (by the way, he has a 4 year degree in Government) LOL Fools. McCain is just the best of two clueless candidates. McCain 08! sigh…

McCain does not even remember what he has said from one day to the next, let alone 12 years ago. His senility is painful to look at.

You can believe in global warming now and do something about it (extremely unlikely), or you can believe in it later when it’s too late to do something about it, there is no third option.

jock and Joe
There is more than one GHG and not all volcanos are created equal. Recent papers on SO2 are somewhat more disturbing and Alaska, ;ile Pennsylvania, is known for it’s high sulphur oil. Alaska is not alone in this. Siberian volcalic activity is up and quite similar in gas concentrations.
The blocking or cooling is from particulate ejecta from eruptions, not the same as outgasing and even then it depends on the gas. There are quite a few articles on this at Science Daily, including one from last summer on how tectonics regulate earths temperature.

sorry, “;ile Pennsylvania” s/b like Penn…

Joe
While AGW is a reality, it is not the major driver of climate. GHGs are not causes of warming but feedback mechanisms to solar forcing. Reduced TSI means less heat both direct from solar radiation and from GHGs, heat retention. At the same time we are heated from within, its not as strong but more than strong enough to force an imbalance, and causes more warming than AGW. The issue that I and other skeptics have with AGW is climate sensitivity. Dr. Spencer demonstrates how the sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than other GHGs or solar forcing.
In other words, under current conditions, the effect of attempts to control CO2 will be meaningless.

ivan12356

Well, I think that the American oil companies are not that big a percentage of the global oil market anymore, not that it is relevant here. The burning of fossil fuels is doing harm no matter who does it.

And yes, McCain DOES agree we need to take action on global warming. It is great that both candidates are on board now.
______________

Jock, your main target has always been AMERICAN oil companies. I’ve never heard you or any other global warming activist point the finger of blame at middle eastern oil companies.

As for McCain, I don’t think you’ve researched his voting record. Whenever there was a vote on the issue McCain has been absent every time. I doubt very much if he’s on board the global warming bandwagon. Even scientists are jumping off.

Isn’t the Republican motto, Drill, Drill, Drill? Teddy Roosevelt would be ashamed of the Republican party if he was alive today.

HarleyDavidson - “Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year”

Human activities a few years ago released about 7,000 teragrams of C as CO2 per year - in terms of CO2 mass, that’s about 26,000 teragrams per year. Depending on whether your values in in mass C or mass CO2, that’s either > 30 times or > 110 times the volcanic emissions.

Quietman -
“At the same time we are heated from within, its not as strong but more than strong enough to force an imbalance, and causes more warming than AGW.”

But remember that geothermal heat loss is a little under 0.1 W/(m2), and there won’t be much fluctuation about that number globally or even regionally, certainly not of the same magnitude. Anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 alone account for - it’s either something like 1.4 or maybe 1.6 W/(m2), somewhere around there, and a doubling of CO2 would cause a radiative forcing near 4 W/(m2).

“Dr. Spencer demonstrates how the sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than other GHGs or solar forcing.”

I’d like to see how he does that.

rgkntulsa - What do big corporations want with the Republicans’ fish?

“Palin is smart enough “

Ah yes, a fundamentalist nutcase being smart. In related news, water is dry.

PS. Nothing on this blog about the LHC yet? What gives?

Patrick
He had an article on the “Friends of Science” website. He also testified before congress on this recently.
On volcanos, the data you used may be dated (I don’t really know). But Science Daily has several recent articles on this as well as an article from last summer on how plate tectonics regulate temperature.

Isn’t the Republican motto, Drill, Drill, Drill? Teddy Roosevelt would be ashamed of the Republican party if he was alive today. Posted by: indy_voter

________________________________________

Yes, indy_voter, you’ve got part of it right. The Republican motto IS drill, drill, drill.

I’m not sure about the apocolyptic greenhouse effect, but I DO know of another apocolyptic consequence if we continue to depend on the middle east for 70% of our oil.

The middle east can mop the floor with the United States if it so chooses. One small middle eastern country can turn America’s lights out in a few seconds. THAT possibility scares ME!

As for “Teddy Roosevelt”, I don’t know what Teddy Roosevelt would have thought
but I know 75% of the VOTERS want more drilling.

indy_voter, So you’re saying the Republicans ARE the cause of global warming because they favor more oil drilling.

Just how do you explain the fact that the CO2 level nearly doubled in the last 10 years and yet the average temperature of the earth hasn’t risen even a fraction of a degree?

It would seem to me that neither American oil companies NOR middle east oil companies are responsible, at least according to these numbers.

As for “Teddy Roosevelt” being ashamed of the Republican party if he were alive today, I think he would be proud of the fact that the Republicans don’t want our country to be dependent on foreign oil, thereby risking an Al Qeada terrorist group literally taking over our country.

I think Roosevelt would be far more ashamed of the Democrats.

Maybe it’s all the hot air? This is an election year after all.

Forgot a negative sign in one small section above:

CORRECTED:

Now, what is F?

F is an imposed **reduction** in net outgoing radiation,
** -F ** = imposed(OLR + reflected SWR - incident SWR)
= imposed(OLR - absorbed SWR)
where of course SWR is solar radiation.

continuing …

In the case of invariant incoming SWR (constant earth sun distance and constant solar TSI, or opposing variations in each): where SENCS = GT-F

Spencer is discussing a climate (in)sensitivity, but what he is looking at is the ratio of SENCS to T. Note that climate insensitivity is F/Teq, or G.

When a change in F first occurs relative to some baseline, SENCS = -F. Before T (relative to some baseline) changes, SENCS/T = 1/0 = undefined. As T responds, GT grows with the same sign (assuming some climatic stability) as F, thus the size of SENCS shrinks while T gets larger. SENCS/T shrinks. As T approaches Teq, GT-F approaches zero. SENCS/T approaches zero.

Thus, depending on the timescale of forcing variations, SENCS/T ranges from zero to infinity!

(And what timescale are we talking about?

Let Teq - T = A*exp[-Bt]

then
dT/dt
= -A*(-B)exp[-Bt]
= ABexp[-Bt]
= B * (Teq - T)

From earlier,
dT/dt = (F-GT)/C

and
G = F/Teq, so
Teq = F/G

therefore
(F-GT)/C = B * (Teq - T)
(F-GT)/C = B * (F/G - T)
G(F-GT)/C = B * (F - GT)
G/C = B

The e-folding time (time it takes, under constant F, for the difference between T and Teq to decay by a factor of e ~= 2.718281828, or to 36.788 % of a starting value) is 1/B = C/G = the heat capacity per unit area * climate sensitivity.

For example,
if a mixed ocean layer with a global average 70 m depth (~ 100 m depth in the oceans, spread over the area of the globe) provides C, then C = ~ 4,000 J/(kg K) * 1000 kg/m3 * 70 m = 280 MJ/(m2 K).

And if climate sensitivity 1/G = 0.7 K/(Wm2)

Then the e-folding time
1/B
= 280 MJ/(m2 K) * 0.7 K/(W/m2)
= 196 MJ/W
= 196 million seconds
= ~ 6.2 years.

Spencer apparently only graphed six years of data, so Teq-T would have shrunk at most to about 38 % of an initial value. For shorter-period variations T would not get near Teq.

Although I must note that I had thought the e-folding time would be longer than just 6.2 years. One key thing here, though, is that this is from a simple formula which assumes near-instantaneous (as well as linearly proportional) globally-averaged radiative feedback responses to temperature.)

Spencer also looked at what happens when T is perturbed (for example, by vertical transfer of heat in the ocean - not his example) and then allowed to respond. In that case, There is an initial radiative imbalance (assuming instantaneous feedbacks) GT, and SENCS = GT, so SENCS/T = G. In this case (when F=0, or at least has been constant so that it and Teq can be defined to be 0 for the purpose of study), Spencer was correct, SENCS/T will reveal the climate (in)sensitivity.

Before even getting into the actual shape of internal variability, there is a further complication here:

This makes enough sense when F is due to something which does not respond in a short time to T (CO2, for example) or respond at all to T (solar TSI forcing, for example).

But Spencer was interested in the climate response to temporal variations in cloud radiative ‘forcing’. If there is a nonzero net globally averaged cloud feedback to forcing by CO2 (there will be cloud feedbacks, both in SW and LW effects, but I don’t know offhand just what is expected of their global average net effect), that would increase or decrease climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing. But CO2 is not, on short time scales, a feedback for cloud ‘forcing’. But is there still a cloud feedback for a cloud ‘forcing’? Can one impose a cloud ‘forcing’ and hold it fixed and at the same time expect the cloud feedback to work as otherwise?

It might be helpful to discuss just what actually is involved in radiative imbalances caused by internal variability:

Clouds and water vapor, and circulation patterns, respond to temperature.

Clouds and water vapor, and their spatial and temporal distributions, also respond to circulation patterns. The globally averaged radiative imbalance (F-GT for the simple model above) is affected not just by cloud type and amount and water vapor amount and vertical distribution but also by the horizontal and temporal (day/night, seasonal) variation of each.

Temperature responds to radiative imbalances.

Temperature also responds to circulation patterns - regionally, obviously, but globally too, in particular to vertical circulation in the oceans, which may redistribute heat to or from the surface of the ocean - also from a fluctuation in the lapse rate of the troposphere, for example, though that one can only do so much.

The circulation pattern responds to itself and to temperature variations.

Within the internal variability of the climate system, one may identify various components of internal variability, with various shapes in space and time. On the shortest timescales we have what is typically considered weather. In the midlatitudes there are extratropical cyclones that grow, mature, and decay; these have tendencies in water vapor, cloud, and temperature distributions, and wind fields, varying depending on the environment that produces and surrounds them. They tend to occur along identifiable storm tracks. Over weeks, each of the jet streams (associated with storm tracks) may take on a more or less wavy form. Blocking patterns may occur and then go away. prevailing winds shift location, direction, speed. Going into seasonal to interannual variability and beyond, we have such things as NAM and SAM, and ENSO, QBO, NAO (related to NAM, I think), PNA (actually that might refer to ENSO or another one as well, I’m not sure), PDO, and AMO.

When variability takes one particular form, such feedbacks as clouds, etc, may occur with some spatial and temporal pattern depending on the form of the variability involved. This could affect the actual effect of the feedbacks.

While some similarities may be seen between a longer-term externally forced change such as global warming, and a trend toward one or the other extreme of some internal variability indices, like perhaps NAM and SAM indices, maybe the ENSO index ? (which would suggest global warming is affecting NAM,SAM,ENSO behavior? - well I’ve read as much, anyway), the overall feedbacks won’t be the exact same regionally or in the global average.

Now, Spencer claimed that analyzing the kinds of data he used in his graphs is an approach people have used to evaluate climate models and their sensitivity. I can believe that is true, but I suspect they don’t do it quite in the way Spencer was thinking.

Patrick

Re: “but I suspect they don’t do it quite in the way Spencer was thinking”

That would be a good reason to write an article, would it not?

no, what I meant was that Spencer’s criticism of the method may not be applicable because that is not the method used by others.

I’m not sure, but one thing that would make sense to me is for a comparison of climate model output SENCS (or whatever other radiative measure)-T plots to the SENCS (etc.)-T plots from observations.

Or there may be some way to look for hints of what climate sensitivity may be from such a SENCS-T plot or other radiative measure-T plot, but it must be more complicated than something like just looking at the slope of a linear regression line, which is the method Spencer was identifying as prone to error.

One thing I should clarify/add:

My estimate of the effective heat capacity and thus of the e-folding time was based on a 100 m deep mixed layer of the ocean.

This was a sample calculation, actually, so the e-folding time could be longer (or shorter, but I would think longer), depending on …

… and of course the e-folding time depends also on the time scale, tending to be larger for longer period variations.

This is because over longer periods of time, more of the volume of the ocean ‘gets involved’.

On land, the effective heat capacity of the surface varies as over longer time periods, conduction can carry heat farther down into the material - and if the thermal properties are constant with depth, a precise mathematical relation exists … I’m not sure but I think the effective heat capacity is proportional to the square root of the time period, in which case the annual heating cycle penetrates roughly 20 times deeper than the daily heating cycle.

Obviously the relationship will be a bit more complicated with the ocean, as essentially all heat transport within it is by convection.

Quietman -

I just posted a comment at Skeptical Science - Arguments - Volcanos.

There are some other matters I never really wrapped up from before - I’d just assume do that here if I get to it.

(For example (typed in a hurry, might be mistakes?):

tidal effects on sun, solar wind, comparison to solar convection,

comparison of lunisolar tidal displacment of Earth’s outer core to speed of convection there

(1 key point - energy is put into the magnetic field by the tendency for convection currents, over time, to carry field lines, distort them, press the field together and stretch it like taffy. (But there will be differences between how the Earth’s dynamo and Sun’s dynamo work.) Tidal distortion is a simple repetitive motion that returns essentially to the starting point after each cycle and doesn’t - at least by itself - tend to fold material irreversibly, although it does stretch and squeeze the whole body. Aside from that, the velocity of tidal motion in the Earth’s outer core is significantly less than typical velocities of convective fluid motion. I expect the same is true within the sun. For the solar wind, tidal displacements and thus velocities would be quite a bit greater going out from the sun, but the solar wind is so much faster (I think a typical speed at Earth’s distance is ~ 500 km/s) and there are significant variations in it’s speed from other causes, … although one could inquire as to the average solar wind speed and direction, stucture, and variations in that due to different causes…)

tidal effects on climate via ocean mixing (actually perhaps significant? (but not necessarily in terms of global average temperature??), and there are tidal cycles, but the strongest cycles (aside from the semidiurnal and diurnal) are the, as far as I know, semi-monthly (spring-neap), monthly (eccentricity of moon’s orbit), semiannual, annual, something around 8 or 9 years (shifting of lunar semimajor axis), and the between 18 and 19 year cycle of lunar orbital inclination precession. There will be longer term variations but I’m not clear that they would explain any noted climatic variations. I’m not even quite sure what or how big the shorter cycles’ effects would be.

solar effects A - some changes have occured in solar TSI - but a small part of total change in climate forcing over the last ~ century or two, especially in recent decades. Other solar effects exist - UV and shorter wavelengths heating the stratosphere and ionosphere, solar activity perturbing Earth’s magnetic field - but aside from the UV and ozone in the stratosphere (which I would think climate models include**), the rest wouldn’t have a significant direct effect on the climate system’s energy budget (changes would be greatest in the upper atmsophere and insignificant in the troposphere), and I would want to here an explanation as to how it would effect mesospheric (well actually I think I know something about that one - the E region dynamo - or is that higher up?), stratospheric or tropospheric circulations.

Solar effects B - there hasn’t been much change in recent decades; Scaffeta and West’s work likely overestimates solar contributions at least for ..**.. and their estimate still leaves plenty for CO2,etc,etc. to explain.

Solar and magnetic effects C - there hasn’t been much change in the neutron count recently (I assume neutrons are not cosmic rays themselves but are generated by cosmic rays in the atmosphere - in which case this indicates not much change in cosmic rays due to combined solar and geomagnetic changes; anyway, the role of cosmic rays in cloud physics is not really established.)

And a technical note about atmospheric physics:

Energy conversion in atmospheric motions - generally kinetic energy generation is proportional to the decrease in gravitational potential energy due to adiabatic motions but it isn’t actually equal to that - but it is equal to the average decrease in atmospheric heat content due to adiabatic motions.

… and the Fairbridge curve - I haven’t looked deep into it yet but the impression I’ve gotten so far is that the idea that, after the last ice age ended, there have been sizable sudden shifts in sea level isn’t supported by much evidence and the evidence it was based on could have other interpretations…

Patrick
Re: ” the role of cosmic rays in cloud physics”
Another good discussion is on this at Skeptical Science.