Disqus - Latest Comments for raydart

Re: Problem 5 of Climate Science

suricat — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:20:09 -0000

Problem 5. Why do most of the forecasts of climate science fail?

Could this be because most of them include radiative forcings?

Unless the spectrum of the radiative forcing falls within the atmospheric window, it doesn't get out of the lower troposphere anyhow. Which means that if it's not in the window it's always only been dealt with by convection in a wet atmosphere. So little change then!

However, they've been programming change from radiative forcing into most of their forecasts so it's a small wonder that many forecasts fail.

Best regards, suricat.

Re: Miskolczi Revisited

suricat — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:47:07 -0000

Thanks for the Google Steve, but the nearest pertinent hit was;
http://www2.ir3s.u-tokyo.ac...
but SCC behaviour is a weather property and not a climate property. I think it's important not to confuse the two.

"The best place is probably the Kleidon & Lorenz MEP Red Book: Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and the Production of Entropy. Springer, 2005."

There's no way that I'll spend about a hundred quid to read another take on MEP. Suffice to say that I'm familiar with the concept. Losses to attractors are almost everywhere!

"There is no 'answer' to the 'Miskolczi virial relationship' because he got it all wrong."

Perhaps, but of greater import, where did he get it all wrong? To the best of my knowledge Miskolczi stated that 'CO2 displaced H2O vapour within Earth's atmosphere which resulted in a constant optical depth' (this is not a literal quote). That being the case, what is it that defines the 'partial pressure' which determines the CC constant for a planetary system? Is it the 'gas mix'?

CO2 has an affinity to mix with water, but this doesn't mean to say that CO2 displaces water vapour to cause it's precipitation.

Any ideas?

Best regards, suricat.

Re: Miskolczi Revisited

suricat — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 22:42:40 -0000

Nick, I find the Miscolczi interpretation intriguing and I've previously said so on the now inaccessible CA bulletin boards.

Surely this paper is for a 'dry atmosphere' and can't relate to Earth's 'wet' troposphere.

Having said that, there isn't much difference between them. If we take 'latent transport' as a 'damper' to KE we find that this is only an exchange between KE and PE! After all, KE and PE are only the inverse of each other within the same environment. However, a change of phase can generate uncertainty on the KE/PE state of energetic resolution. Yet another reason why I consider the tropo below 5-8 km to be an 'evaporative exchanger' for insolation energies.

Personally, I think the answer to the Miscolczi virial relationship is dependant upon the CC relationship of near surface constant RH for all temps (of course, this relies on the constant 'partial pressure' of the gas mix involved).

Best regards, suricat.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:25:09 -0000

As a member of the engineering fraternity I don't generate hypotheses, only comment on their feasibility. It's impossible to accurately model an effect such as ENSO without modelling the whole system, then observe the ENSO effect within that system. Unfortunately, mass inertia plays such a large role within the system's dynamic that the converging Hadley Cells through to the Hadley/Ferrel jets need to be modelled in some 3D way.

Engineers have a term for the ENSO effect, we apply it to a centrifugal turbine system and call it "hunting". However, as you refuse to engage with the effect of inertia I've tried to comment only on surface effect.

I don't think I can be of more help here under such a restricted caveat, so I'll be off. If you need to contact me a post in the CA forum (where I use my nickname of suricat) should gain my attention.

Best regards for the future, raydart.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:31:14 -0000

I think that davids99us is correct to call for clarification. Following the first diurnal cycle, energy released by ocean becomes a radiative issue as latent energy between WV and cloud with their associated atmospheric forcings, but the initial energy release is ocean to atmosphere gas (WV) transmission and is part of the evapotranspiration phase of the hydrocycle. Thus, investigation of the drivers of the hydrocycle should indicate causes for ENSO. A good place to start looks to be the disparity of land and ocean area between the NH and SH regions.

Without doubt, levels of OHC will display variant hysteresis parameters as the OHC must alter sea surface temps (as would land precipitation without runoff affect land WV production).

Best regards, raydart.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:17:20 -0000

"Presumably you mean about AGW": No, I wouldn't pose such a pointless question. It was truth of science, or consensus with policy (to whichever group). However, any response would probably be pointless anyhow as you already seem to have side stepped the issue. No matter.

I'd already read your last item on Jen's site when it was first posted. Refreshing read in our current desert of literature!

Best regards, raydart.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:59:14 -0000

With all due respect David, the word processor application you use really 'sucks' on this site. Are you familiar with the old Lotus Word Pro app? I know this has been superseded by the latest IBM contribution, but the old (and cheap) Lotus software is really good for blogging (with the exception of live links).

Best regards, raydart.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:29:32 -0000

Correct! Please think this one out. The politic dictates that one or the other hypothesis rules. They both claim a forced response to cloud reduction, whereas an empirical equivalent explanation already exists.

Best regards, raydart.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:38:46 -0000

Sorry cohenite, but 'the science' isn't about who is believable (this encroaches upon democratic representation and the direction of future policy). It's about the accurate representation of nature.

Can you expand on the reasons for your beliefs?

Best regards, raydart.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:29:37 -0000

Does this mean I get the Pulitzer prize for obscure posts? :blush:

OK, I'll expand on this. G. A. Meehl, et al and cosmic ray theory both claim the same effect for opposing scenarios (opposing scenarios at solar Max). This means that at best, the effect is shared.

However, a recognised atmospheric effect of soot and black carbon predisposes the atmosphere to lower its relative humidity (RH) by introducing warmer atmospheric temperatures. This, in turn, increases the hygroscopic property of the affected atmosphere, thus, this atmosphere needs a greater specific humidity (SH) for precipitation to occur. Solar Max exacerbates this atmospheric conditioning.

On the ocean side, the elevated level of UV insolation during solar Max mediates greater warming to ocean depth (path to extinction of UV into 'pure' water is about 700m). This can both increase the background temperature for near surface temperatures and alter conventional flows at greater depth (pulling colder water towards the surface by convection for 'mixing') dependant upon the susceptibility of the ocean region. Ocean regions affected by the former scenario are able to evaporate more water (WV) into the atmosphere, but ocean regions affected by the latter scenario are unable to supply this extra WV due to ocean surface cooling by deeper ocean 'mixing'.

So it would seem that there is already an empirical model that would explain, at least, most of this effect (if only observations could 'step up to the plate').

Best regards, raydart.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:48:28 -0000

Perhaps it's because I'm a mature engineer with an access restriction (caring for mum (97 YOA) and she can't be left alone for long), but I have a problem reading papers that are behind a 'money wall'.

However, although I've not actually read the paper, this paper is bespoke in many parts of the climate community and I've a third party understanding of it. Having not read it, I have my reservations and I'll list these. Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

The enhanced insolation due to reduced cloud cover mediated by solar maxima seems to be in opposition (truly opposite) to the 'cosmic ray theory'. Though, this is not necessarily true for any ocean response that can influence the atmosphere.

I don't understand how ozone becomes a factor for EUV insolation (enhanced UV insolation). 'UV A' always penetrates Earth's atmosphere to surface. 'UV B' always penetrates as well when it's insolation level is increasing, as any ozone generated from EUV has a time lag before its generation of ozone to block it (also, part of its window is open anyhow). Thus, 'UV B' averages as EUV eventually decreases. The only exception to this is when EUV encounters an atmospheric aerosol 'particulate' that initiates a 'global dimming' scenario for ocean response! Such as atmospheric soot.

If you want, I'll post again on the possible scenarios that I believe may occur. However, I've not read the 'full' paper!

Best regards, raydart.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:02:29 -0000

"Just a thought".

I think that this is quite a pertinent "thought".

From your post, I don't think that English is your first (mother/father) language. Please excuse me if my observation is incorrect.

For the subject of "latitudinal propagation of El Niño warming" I would suggest a 'google' on "MEP" (maximum equilibrium production). This is likely to produce any work that has already been done in this category. If nothing else, it'll point to key areas that you can understand as being unobserved for your thesis under consideration.

PDO as subordinate to ENSO. To my understanding this comes up with a truth in the logic box, but its explanation should be in another post, or perhaps site (our host currently seems belligerent to controversial theory). Currently, I believe, climate science only recognises expansion/contraction of the atmosphere and WV production producing a gravity pump ( like in a fish tank filter system, as WV is lighter than air) as mediators for Climate Cell evolution. The turbine effect of planetary rotation doesn't even seem to receive 'lip service'.

IMHO, without these 'tools' to describe your theory it's probably better that you discuss this elsewhere. "Climate Audit" seems relatively benign, but each site has its limitation.

Hope this helps.

Best regards, raydart.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:21:33 -0000

"Raydart/suricat": Hum! Yes, this was a 'dur-brain moment' (moment absent of logic) when I first posted here, but I can't be bothered to alter the auto-identity so I'll drop the nickname and keep my truer moniker for this site.

Has M's theory gone this far! In that case, I'm glad I gave it a kick when it seemed dead on CA. Great write-up and I can't wait till I get to the end, but don't spoil the ending for me (because I don't get much time to read the stuff that I like).

Best regards, raydart.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:28:14 -0000

cohenite: "ENSO asymmetry and therefore contribution to trend, maybe radiative based;".

I concur, but it's expected that all action to Earth's climate is "radiative based" at TOA!

I think that the real question is "what does Earth's mass do with the "radiative based energy" within this Earth's (mass based) climate".

I hope you'll tell me that my post was pointless.

Best regards, suricat.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:28:17 -0000

david99us: "Well they are forces in a rotational reference frame with a different
description in a fixed reference frame. I don't have too much patience for
these types of discussion so you will have to excuse me if I don't get too
involved."

Your pardon is granted, but I had no intention of invoking a relativistic aspect to the ref frame of a geostatic observation.

Pity really because it's a beautiful curve - invoked by inertial conservation - that resembles an elliptical helix that's broken at its origin and finality, but shaped in the z dimension by gravity against the curve of the planet.

This is a part of the subject that was posted, but perhaps not a part of interest.

Sorry for the digression. Would you have more interest in (poetic licence) "the breath of Earths oceans"?

Best regards, suricat.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:07:33 -0000

No David, but they're not "forces" either! They're "effects" of "mass inertia"!

The weight of a mass has the property of "inertia" (potential, or kinetic). This inertia can provoke many effects that provide a force that may well be known by the "label" of "its effect", but the "label" only applies to "the effect per se". The "force", in this instance, is due to "inertial mass" and perfectly fits both the "centrifugal" and "coriolis" effects that you mention.

Hope this helps to better explain my viewpoint.

Best regards, suricat.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:47:49 -0000

ENSO (etc.) is an attractor to Earth's chaotic climate due to - whatever reason - the mass : energy interactions between mass : mass, or mass : EMS (mass : electromagnetic spectrum).

The radiative budget is at TOA (top of atmosphere) which avoids the chaos that the mass of Earth's climate incurs and only has issue with 'energy in : energy out' (all EMS) to Earth's climate, not the chaotic contortions within Earth's climate that involves mass (matter).

I concur. The demarcation of these phenomena should be better explained for their respective roles within any scenario.

Best regards, suricat.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:24:22 -0000

Exactly my point AreaMan. At the equator the NH & SH Hadley Cells carry the atmosphere aloft where its momentum slows its revolutions per day compared to the planet. Thus, the greater the altitude, the greater the retrograde motion compared to Earth's rotation (east to west atmospheric movement). However, at the other side of the Hadley Cells and away from the equator, a west to east energy can be seen to the extent that "Jets" are generated.

How can the equatorial west to east Walker Circulation be solely an atmospheric phenomenon? Have I omitted something?

Best regards, suricat.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:38:34 -0000

davids99us.

"coriolis effect is zero at the equator.": To the contrary, Earth's centrifuge is strongest at its greatest radius perpendicular to its axis of spin. IOW, the equator.

Best regards, suricat.

Re: No Weakening of the Walker

suricat — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 21:16:06 -0000

David.

The Walker circulation always seems to be a conundrum to me. It's usually presented as an atmospheric overturning current, but the W to E direction defies the natural momentum vector of coriolis effect. Thus, I'm bound to believe that this can only be an ocean effect that 'forces' the atmospheric region above it.

Surely, this atmospheric circulation is derived from medium to deep ocean heat content that finally affects the ocean surface temperature for that region?

If this is so, UV solar insolation levels may well be the mediator of this phenomenon. What's your opinion?

Best regards, suricat.