Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq
-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Jim Diamond
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 11:52 PM
To: Phys-L@phys-l.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Garth Paltridge: Climate Change's Inherent Uncertainties
Here are a few of the indicators of the real situation:
* nearly unprecedented loss of arctic sea ice (even including supposed gain in antarctic sea ice)
* rapidly increasing sea level rise exceeding the rate of rise of any model of the IPCC
* rapidly increasing ocean heat content, at depths as low as 2 km below the surface
* a forty year record of decline of northern hemisphere snow and ice that will lead to a loss of almost all permanent ice outside of Greenland and the high mountain regions by 2050.
These are not models. These are observations.
In my opinion, the worst way to measure the effects of global warming is to use surface temperatures. This is like trying to measure the temperature of a beaker of liquid water by suspending a thermometer a few microns above the surface of water and measuring the temperature of the air above, while putting the entire apparatus in the back of a pickup and driving around into the sun and back into the shade with no attempt to control sloshing in the beaker. It is no surprise that surface temperatures show such wide variance. The best way to measure the temperature of the beaker of water is to immerse the thermometer in the liquid, then measure the temperature.
That is what we have done with the ARGO float data for a decade, and the data is bad news.
We are the frog slowly cooking in the pot.
Imagine that! By 2050, almost all northern hemisphere snow and ice cover will be seasonal, not permanent, but for Greenland and the highest mountain regions. If you don't think this is a substantial alteration of earth's ecosystem, IMO there is something wrong with your logic.
Now, a little less than 50% of cumulative emissions are due to OECD plus BRIC and Indochina; the rest of the world has the responsibility for the rest. I see little prospect of controlling the emissions outside of the OECD nations.
I don't think we will avoid a 4°C increase in global surface temperatures; we might even hit 6°C if we keep accelerating our emissions at the present rate. I suspect that it is highly likely that Andy Dessler and Michael Mann are correct that climate sensitivity is likely to be much larger than 3.15°C.
Cloud feedback appears to be dominated by trapping by low-level clouds of IR radiated by the earth , not by changes in albedo due to upper-level clouds.
There are plenty of references to back up these data. Just look for yourself.
Happy Year of the Horse
恭喜发财。 身体健康！
Jim
--
James J. Diamond, Ph.D.
Department of Chemistry
Linfield College
McMinnville, OR 97128
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l