Monday 23rd of December 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

under the weather...

under the weather

picture by Gus Leonisky — central Australia (heat on the ground near 50 degrees C "in the shade")

This is a short critical analysis of a presentation by the famous meteorologist and climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen. 

From Richard Lindzen:

The public perception of the climate problem is somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, the problem is perceived to be so complex that it cannot be approached without massive computer programs. On the other hand, the physics is claimed to be so basic that the dire conclusions commonly presented are considered to be self-evident.

Consistent with this situation, climate has become a field where there is a distinct separation of theory and modeling. Commonly, in fluid mechanics, theory provides useful constraints and tests when applied to modeling results. This has been notably absent in current work on climate.

... Blah blah blah...

I hope that what has been shown demonstrates that increasing CO2and greenhouse warming are not at all indicative of alarm, and that there is ample evidence that the system is not particularly sensitive. Moreover, the high sensitivity of some current models would render the stability of the earth over 4.5 billion years dubious. Engineers have long recognized this and generally avoid feedback factors greater than about 0.1. In any event, thanks for your attention.
[email protected]
Climate v. Climate AlarmRichard S. LindzenDepartment of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary SciencesMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, MA 02139 USAA pdf of these slides is available on request to [email protected] 1 American Chemical SocietyAugust 28, 2011

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

Gus: I am at a loss here... If one studies his presentation in detail (see link) Lindzen has not done what he set out to do: "I hope that...". No. Not in hell... 

It looks as if Lindzen is trying to convince himself of his own bullshit. He's been a serious meteorologist for yonks and now some upstarts in global warming theory are giving him a reality kick in the backside. He does not like it much but from his explanations, he has no real ammunitions against the global warming theory and that trouble seems to underlay his goofed-up essay.

A lot of what Richard S. Lindzen has to say against climate change and global warming theory looks at-priori authoritative and knowledgeable ... But in too many places, he makes simplistic bullshitting assumptions — including the mention of "fluid dynamics" supposedly absent in present global warming modelling... crap.

The whole purpose of computerised modelling climate change is to do a fluid dynamic super-analysis of the ENTIRE system under variable conditions of temperature, of various surfaces, of radiation absorption, of various fluids (sea, atmosphere layering) of pressure, of radiative forcing, of laminar flow, turbulent flow, doldrums, clouds, points of reference... and other factors such as albedo, inversions and of all things: TIME scale. 

As well, we need to include parallel to this study, the geological observed relationship between CO2 and global temperature from the past one million years. The story is overwhelming: whichever comes first can be established later but the relationship is strong. More CO2 equals higher temperatures...

Studies of fluid mechanics in parts of the system in isolation has of course been taken into account by climate change modelling, but for Lindzen it's easier to dismiss the whole process by saying they didn't... I suspect he has not done this himself, and to say the least, most of these computer models are conservative in their approach to the problem. I tend to be more radical.

It appears thus Lindzen's analysis of points, such as the greenhouse effect for this planet, the moist adiabatic lapse rate and the Rossby radius whatever is done mostly with the intent to dazzle us with "facts and figures, equations and relationships" which he seems to know well since he's a senior meteorologist.

But Lindzen's whole analysis is not quite right, often skewed and always jumps to conclusions without having made any links whatsoever to the whatever... 

His expertise seems to be the cloud feedback mechanism, but, even there, he makes some very iffy deductions, not accounting for other factors. His general end-comment of "high sensitivity of some current models would render the stability of the earth over 4.5 billion years dubious" is quite idiotic. It  does not fit the geo-palaeo-historical record scientists have made of this planet — in which the atmosphere became oxygen-rich through the biotic reactive process — these days, mainly photosynthesis. 

Changes there has been and changes there will be. 
But the nature of some changes in scope and in time scale can make things uncomfortable for those living on the planet. The present climate change is EXTRA carbon induced (I don't think Lindzen challenges this proposition, he only harps about the "insignificant" magnitude of the problem — one degree C of temperature per doubling of CO2 concentration).

Let's say the extra carbon (fossil fuels that we burn into CO2) has not been part of the surface-equation for millions of years and this is taking us from recent climatic fluctuation into generally understood climatic change of more than 100 million years ago...

To write "engineers have long recognized this and generally avoid feedback factors greater than about 0.1" is glib and says peanuts about the problem underfoot... 
Tesla's own observations of reverberations/vibrations and that of many acoustic engineers show that some feedback mechanism can have some dire effect... Sure engineers will try to minimise feedback to make a system as quiet and as smooth as possible...

But the planet is not an engineer and there are many feedback mechanisms, biological, airy and structural that have changed the surface of the planet — including continental drift. We know for example that the extinction of the dinosaurs is strongly linked to a meteor hitting the earth that started a chain of climatic condition changes on the planet... but it took another one million years to "wipe out" the dinosaurs. Other naturally occurring stressing factors came into play as well.
This is no reason to be complacent about our own "slow" (fast in geological time) influence of climate by the release of EXTRA carbon as CO2 into the atmosphere.

For goodness' sake, Lindzen diagram of the troposphere is very wonky... too schematic to be worth a rabbit's fart... I know it is designed for chemical engineers (Lecture to the American Chemical Society August 28, 2011) but do not let me go on a glorious boat trip on the "Bounty" with Lindzen, when there is a hurricane lurking about.

Now let me see. According to my understanding of convection and baroclinic eddies conundrum, at 30 degrees ( note: 23 to 24 degrees of the earth axis inclination) north and south of latitude there is a swift change... and to some extend I accept there is. But such simplification always end up removing important non-negligible aspects of processes:
In equatorial latitudes most of the movement is updraft (low pressure system, high rainfall)
In the tropical region, the movement of air is down-draft (high pressure, low humidity, desertification in subtropical areas). Weather changes quite dramatically between seasons (dry winter, wet summer). 

Basically, now imagine that the weather zones globe (thin layer of the atmosphere) stays relatively put in terms of temperature and humidity in relation to the sun — square on. Then imagine the planet, under this weather zones cover, changes position below it due to the angle of the axis (presently 23.439 degrees measured from the perpendicular to the Ecliptic) and the orbit around the sun. 

This changing positioning of the planet's angle in relation to the weather zoning of the atmosphere (square on to the sun) create the seasons — seasons which are more noticed in higher latitudes but still marked in the tropical areas. When in summer, the equatorial weather zone (low pressure, high humidity) is aplomb to the tropics for a particular hemisphere for example.

It has been noted that due to climate change, the "traditional" (accepted) boundaries of tropical, subtropical and temperate regions are "expanding" somewhat towards the poles. Of course, seasons, continental and oceanic position do affect these boundaries somewhat. In Siberia, one can have minus 40 C in winter (polar wet conditions) and now up to 39 degree C in summer (tropical dry conditions). 


Beyond this, there is the unavoidable knowledge that hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons — which are a mix of baroclinic eddies and convection effect — start as high as TEN DEGREES (south and North) latitude.
Cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons start especially in times when the position of the induction point is located straight below the sun (maximum updraft, Autumn, rather than spring or summer — though they can occur at such times too) after a long period of oceans warming — the atmospheric temperature reacts with a (night/day) change of temperature gradient above an island (often tiny) or such. 
The increased convection differential is captured by the Coriolis effect and is soon transformed into a baroclinic eddy. As the system gains strength it will move towards the respective tropical boundaries (but never crosses the equator) and increase in intensity. In most cases these cyclonic eddies travel counter current and are much smaller though more powerful than temperate baroclinic eddies. 
Most baroclinic eddies move from west to east. Most hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones move east to west until they reach the subtropical/temperate region, make land fall, or start to shift east like other baroclinic eddies, to become a common storm — but often in a "towards the poles" direction as well. 

As has been observed recently with Hurricane Sandy, other atmospheric anomalies can create a change of path (with calculable predictability) to such a tropical eddy. ANOMALIES are the bread and butter of meteorologists (often explaining weather events — especially AFTER THE FACTS). Due to these anomalies, prediction of the next "weather" is often iffy beyond 3 days, though one can indulge in "long range" forecast, using known patterns (observations of previous long term conditions). 

It has been noted that there has been changes in "seasonal activities". For example strong hurricane appearing later in the year than previously, snow lines are retreating, glacier are melting, The Arctic is melting and the Antarctic gets a fraction more humidification.  All these indices are in line with a warming of the planet. All these processes also do absorb "energy" (heat) thus retarding the general atmospheric warming. Increase humidification also retards warming but there is a balancing point which can shift very fast in regard to cloud feedback mechanism.

Gus's own meteorological knowledge — I started early in my youth studying in depth comprehensive meteorology for professional pilot manuals — told me Sandy was going to be a cracker... But one could not not say with 100 per cent certainty anything about the intensity and the damage... The observations (as noted on my snapshots taken daily from google earth weather (this can be wrong but usually is right — I did similar plots for Katrina in 2005) showed two major strong systems converging... They could have 'cancelled" each other, but most likely they were going to merge into a "super storm" which they did, to a point. It could have been a lot worse should Sandy not having been running out of puff. But as "predicted", Sandy, after having travelled North-East, unlike other such storms turned "left", and mixed into the huge front coming from the West.
-----------------------------------------
Back to Lindzen:

While introducing us to the NSIPP, GFDL, SNU and GEOS5 computer models for global warming, Lindzen tells us:

Existing models all seem to properly display the moist adiabatic profile in the tropics.
Here we see the meridional distribution of the temperature response to a doubling of CO2from four typical models. The response is characterized by the so-called hot spot (ie, the response in the tropical upper troposphere is from 2-3 times larger than the surface response). We know that the models are correct in this respect since the hot spot is simply a consequence of the fact that tropical temperatures approximately follow what is known as the moist adiabat. This is simply a consequence of the dominant role of moist convection in the tropics.Curiously, polar amplification at the surface is not very striking in the models.

On the next frame, Lindzen tells us:
However, the temperature trends obtained from observations fail to show the hot spot.
The resolution of the discrepancy demands that either the upper troposphere measurements are wrong, the surface measurements are wrong or both. If it is the surface measurements, then the surface trend must be reduced from ‘a’ to ‘b’.
Given how small the trends are, and how large the uncertainties in the analysis, such errors are hardly out of the question. In fact there are excellent reasons to suppose that the error resides in the surface measurements.
ACS-2011.pdf


But other observations and calculations have actually challenged this point (also raised by Jo Nova). Robert J. Allen and Steven C. Sherwood have measured things differently and their study has been peered reviewed, unlike that of Lindzen. Their study points out that:

Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures. Also, the models predict the fastest warming should occur at the Tropics at an altitude between eight and 12 kilometers. However, temperature readings taken from weather balloons and satellites have, according to most analysts, shown little if any warming there compared to the surface.

Thus the computer models could be totally wrong... unless:

By measuring changes in winds, rather than relying upon problematic temperature measurements, Robert J. Allen and Steven C. Sherwood of the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale estimated the atmospheric temperatures near 10 km in the Tropics rose about 0.65 degrees Celsius per decade since 1970—probably the fastest warming rate anywhere in Earth's atmosphere. The temperature increase is in line with predictions of global warming models.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080530144943.htm

Now, why measure winds rather than temperature directly?...
Many scientists, including Allen and Sherwood, have long argued that temperature data were flawed for many reasons such as the change of instrument design over the years. “These systems were never designed for measuring climate change,” said Sherwood. However, some global warming skeptics had argued that weather balloon temperatures were accurate—and models that predicted global warming were wrong.
Allen and Sherwood predicted that measuring thermal winds, which are tied to fluctuations in temperatures, would be a more accurate gauge of true atmospheric warming than the thermometers. To measure the thermal winds, they studied data on the motion of weather balloons at different altitudes in the atmosphere. They then calculated temperatures that would account for the wind velocity recorded.
--------------------------------------

Instrumentation is critical. there was for some years an instrument that measured CO2 in the upper atmosphere and contrary to what one would expect — an homogenous mix — the observations showed a decrease of CO2 the higher one got... The problem was too simple: the instrument measured the decreasing absolute quantity of CO2 not the relative quantity of CO2 to the surrounding atmospheric mix conditions... 
---------------------

More could be said here on the disingenuous study proposed by Lindzen... He has of course his supporters, including Lord Monckton of Brenchley and the Koch brothers... One thing too, Lindzen gets financial support from the carbon lobby to sow doubt amongst the populace, by appearing knowledgeable, which he is to a point, but perverse enough to jump to conclusion without a single link.
This tactic has been the exclusive domain of the denialists, while proper scientists do question their own results and theories as they should, while strongly backing up their arguments within the range of undeniable observations.

Global warming is real and anthropogenically induced... The range of its predictable effects is variable, but by no means is it going to be a breeze... Weather extremes will become the norm as shown by the latest floods in the UK... The cost of disasters at some stage will be far more than the cost of prevention — reduction of CO2 emissions.

 

A disservice to the scientific method...

 

A team of UK climate experts has published a critique of a talk given by climate skeptic scientist Richard Lindzen a few weeks ago. The event was organised by the Campaign To Repeal the Climate Change Act.

Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was speaking at the House of Commons in a meeting chaired by Christopher Monckton. While the authors of the critique could agree with Lindzen on some grounds, they also found some pretty glaring inaccuracies in his talk.

Lindzen has published a large body of peer-reviewed work on climate change, but his work remains disputed. It's very popular with the skeptic end of the media and he is also member of the academic advisory council to Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation.

His speech was  criticised by the blog Skeptical Science. Climatologist Dr Gavin Schmidt also pointed out flaws in his presentation of temperature data at the blog Real Climate, resulting in an apology from Lindzen.

Now, several UK experts have got in on the act, offering their own critique of Lindzen's speech. They are climate physicists Professor Sir Brian Hoskins at Imperial College; Professor John Mitchell, of the University of Reading and the UK Met Office; Professor Keith Shine, University of Reading; Professor  Tim Palmer, University of Oxford; and Professor Eric Wolff, British Antarctic Survey Science Leader.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/04/climate-scientists-take-on-lindzen

And to that list of eminent scientists' works, one can add Gus Leonisky's farting around — see above....

 

breaking the ice...

A large tanker carrying liquified natural gas (LNG) is set to become the first ship of its type to sail across the Arctic.

The carrier, Ob River, left Norway in November and has sailed north of Russia on its way to Japan.

The specially equipped tanker is due to arrive in early December and will shave 20 days off the regular journey.

The owners say that changing climate conditions and a volatile gas market make the Arctic transit profitable.

Long-term preparation

Built in 2007 with a strengthened hull, the Ob River can carry up to 150,000 cubic metres of gas. The tanker was loaded with LNG at Hammerfest in the north of Norway on 7 November and set sail across the Barents Sea. It has been accompanied by a Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker for much of its voyage.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20454757

under the harbour bridge...

Sydney had its longest run of cool days in November for over a decade, but that's all changed.
"It'll be a bit of a shock to some," Weatherzone meteorologist Brett Dutschke said.
Forecasters say Sunday and Monday's humidity will continue until midweek, with a chance of storms, before dry heat hits and temperatures peak at 29 on Thursday and the low 30s on Friday and Saturday.
On the central and northern coasts, it could reach the low 40s at the end of the week, Mr Dutschke said.

Ahead of predicted thunderstorms and heat, firefighters are warning people around NSW to clear their gutters, remove fuel from yards and have a bushfire plan.
"This [will be] certainly the hottest weather we've had so far this season," Mr Dutschke said.
"For some parts of NSW it will be the hottest weather experienced in three years."
It's a stark contrast to earlier this month which had 14 consecutive days below 25 degrees, the coolest stretch in Sydney since 2000, he said.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/forget-the-cold-as-hot-weather-moves-in-20121126-2a2el.html#ixzz2DIJEKonL

hot air in qatar...

For the next fornight, up to 17,000 delegates will be negotiating a new global deal on climate, but there are ongoing tensions between rich and poor countries.

A central issue at the summit is the the problem of "hot air" carbon permits.

The derisory term refers to attempts by some wealthy countries to carry over unused carbon permits so they can be offset against future cuts.

Developing nations say this is unfair and reduces the value of any commitment to reduce CO2.

But as Qatar welcomes world leaders to the conference, its own environmental record has come under criticism as a major contributor to greenhouse gases.

The climate talks, have placed a spotlight on the Gulf Arab state, which produces nearly 50 tonnes a year of carbon dioxide for each of its 1.6 million resident

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/2012112653846518562.html

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

Professor Tim Flannery says Australia installed more solar panels last year than any other country, but the renewable energy sector still has room to shine.

The Climate Commission has released its first major report on renewable energy, which shows Australia is doing well but still under-utilising its renewable energy potential.

Professor Flannery, chief commissioner and report author, says about 10 per cent of Australia's energy needs are being met by renewable energy such as wind and solar power.

However, he says there is a global shift away from fossil fuels and Australia is well placed to develop its potential in renewables.

"The purpose [of the report] is to highlight two things: one is Australia's potential in terms of renewable energy; two is the speed at which this is happening," Professor Flannery said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-26/climate-commission-release-renewable-energy-report/4391764

the human race might just be doomed...

 

 

From John Birmingham...
...
The true non-believers, however. I don’t really get them. I’m willing to believe that consensus opinion of thousands of massively pointy-headed science-guys might be wrong, and that some comment troll from the outer suburban wastes has it nailed about the vast climate change conspiracy. Frankly, part of me is praying for that, because it would be double plus awesome. Civilisation gets to kick on! Huzzah!

But to see the reaction of the deniers to news that we might have broken the permafrost and the results of this could be much, much worse than even the most pessimistic climate change models predict, is to see why the human race might just be doomed.
Not the planet itself, of course. Just us and everything we’ve built.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/theyre-so-wrong-but-i-wish-they-were-right-20121128-2adz3.html#ixzz2DZPPbRCh

 

 

heatwave on the way...

A heatwave is set to sweep across parts of NSW in the coming days, prompting a warning about the potentially fatal consequences of spending too much time in the sun.
Temperatures are expected to climb into the high 30s and low 40s in western NSW, western Sydney and the lower Blue Mountains over the weekend.
NSW Health says a heatwave in Sydney in 2011 was responsible for the deaths of 96 people and has urged people to keep an eye out for vulnerable members of the community over the next few days.
"The heatwave that affected Sydney in February 2011 ... is a stark reminder that extreme heat presents a real and potentially life-threatening risk," said NSW environmental health medical adviser Richard Broome.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/dangerous-heatwave-heading-to-nsw-20121129-2ahfl.html#ixzz2DZQkMCfg

and while we're sweltering...

 

More than 4tn tonnes of ice from Greenland and Antarctica has melted in the past 20 years and flowed into the oceans, pushing up sea levels, according to a study that provides the best measure to date of the effect climate change is having on the earth's biggest ice sheets.

The research involved dozens of scientists and 10 satellite missions and presents a disturbing picture of the impact of recent warming at the poles.

The scientists claim the study, published in the journal Science, ends a long-running debate over whether the vast ice sheet covering the Antarctic continent is losing or gaining mass. East Antarctica is gaining some ice, the satellite data shows, but west Antarctica and the Antarctic peninsula is losing twice as much, meaning overall the sheet is melting.

"The estimates are the most reliable to date, and end 20 years of uncertainty of ice mass changes in Antarctica and Greenland," said study leader, Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University. "There have been 30 different estimates of the sea level rise contribution of Greenland and Antarctica, ranging from an annual 2mm rise to a 0.4mm fall.

"We can state definitively that both Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass, and as [the] temperature goes up we are going to lose more ice."

The study shows the melting of the two giant ice sheets has caused the seas to rise by more than 11mm in 20 years. It also found Greenland is losing ice mass at five times the rate of the early 1990s.

The uncertainties over ice cap melting have made it difficult for scientists to predict sea level rise. But Prof Richard Alley, of Penn State University, US, who was not involved in the study, said: "This project is a spectacular achievement. The data will support essential testing of predictive models, and will lead to a better understanding of how sea level change may depend on the human decisions that influence global temperatures." Rising sea level is one of the greatest long-term threats posed by climate change, threatening low-lying cities and increasing the damage wrought by hurricanes and typhoons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/29/greenland-antarctica-4-trillion-tonnes-ice/print

 

The day you say "I felt" global warming will be the day you'll have five years to prepare for hell... Today most of Australia's populated centres, from Hobart (43 degrees south) to Darwin (12.5 south) are registering temperature well over 30 degrees C, some centre having already experienced 40 +... See picture at top...

See also: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/12838

 

melting hearts...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzw1dZNWiL8

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZTMVNBjc4

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=DjeIpjhAqsM&NR=1

meanwhile in the north...

The weather bureau says yesterday was the hottest December day in Darwin for 36 years, and there are more hot, steamy times to come.

The temperature reached 36.3 degrees Celsius yesterday afternoon.

Last night was the warmest night in Katherine, 200 kilometres south of Darwin, since 1988, with the temperature only going as low as 28.9C.

But forecaster Chris Davies says Darwin's overnight low of 29.2C failed to break any records.

"It was hanging around in the high 29s for a while and we were thinking maybe we would get something," he said.

"But there have been quite a few days in the 29s.

"The last time it was this warm was 29.7C in 2009, about this time of year."

Humidity levels in the Top End have been hovering between 60 per cent and 90 per cent for the last few days.

While the wet season is supposed to have begun in the Northern Territory, very little rain has fallen in Darwin.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-07/hottest-day-darwin-and-late-wet-season/4414614

summer heat...

AUSTRALIA'S notoriously variable climate is on full display, with parts of the nation about to experience one of the largest heatwaves in territorial extent in decades, after coming off a sharp shift last year from wetter- to drier-than-average conditions.
A swath of central Australia stretching from Oodnadatta to Coober Pedy and Birdsville can expect maximum temperatures of 45 degrees or hotter for at least a week. Towns to the south and east, such as Mildura and Hay, can expect to broil with 40-degree maximum temperatures for just as long.
''We have a major heat event under way,'' Karl Braganza, a manager of climate monitoring at the Bureau of Meteorology, said. ''There are not many instances in the historical record where you get a heat event covering such a large area of the continent.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/centre-set-to-swelter-as-biggest-heatwave-in-decades-settles-in-20130102-2c5jk.html#ixzz2GqxAjgyt

sky and earth

going off the charts...

 

The range now extends to 54 degrees – well above the all-time record temperature of 50.7 degrees reached on January 2, 1960 at Oodnadatta Airport in South Australia – and, perhaps worringly, the forecast outlook is starting to deploy the new colours.

"The scale has just been increased today and I would anticipate it is because the forecast coming from the bureau's model is showing temperatures in excess of 50 degrees," David Jones, head of the bureau's climate monitoring and prediction unit, said.
While recent days have seen Australian temperature maps displaying maximums ranging from 40 degrees to 48 degrees - depicted in the colour scheme as burnt orange to black – both Sunday and Monday are now showing regions likely to hit 50 degrees or more, coloured purple.
Clicking on the prediction for 5pm AEDT next Monday, a Tasmania-sized deep purple opens up over South Australia – implying 50 degrees or above.
Aaron Coutts-Smith, the bureau's NSW head of climate monitoring, though, cautioned that the 50-degree reading is the result of just one of the bureau's models. "The indications are, from the South Australian office, that we are not looking at getting any where near that (50 degree level)."
Still, large parts of central Australia have limited monitoring, so the 50.7 degree record may be broken."The air mass over the inland is still heating up - it hasn't peaked," Dr Jones said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/temperatures-off-the-charts-as-australia-turns-deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html#ixzz2HM9IZrT3

mapheat
See picture and article at top...