by Anastassia Makarieva, Victor Gorshkov, Douglas Sheil, Antonio Nobre, Larry Li

[...]

In other words, all work performed by the non-condensable gases as they ascend and expand is fully spent on elevating their respective molar shares of total air mass in the gravitational field. Nothing is left to generate kinetic energy.

By contrast, if we consider the saturated water vapor, condensation means that we have

[Equation 2]

That is, the work of the partial pressure gradient of water vapor greatly exceeds what is needed to overcome gravity. The main physical statement behind our new view is that this net remaining power

[Equation 3]

is available to generate kinetic energy and drive the Earth’s atmospheric dynamics. Roughly speaking it is the power that remains after the water vapor has “lifted itself”. The value of q represents the volume-specific power of the “motor” that drives the atmospheric circulation.

>>>>>>

http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/

http://www.sciencebits.com/Munich-2012

Perrott is droning on about deniers, as always, and Hot Tooic are conducting the usual witch hunt against Chris de Freitas

How much of my taxpayer money goes into sponsoring this crap via SciBlogs, I ask myself?

Is it any wonder that no self respecting young person wants to bother studying science in NZ anymore?

tallbloke says:
January 16, 2013 at 8:16 am

The energy imbalance isn’t in the direction Hansen fondly believes:

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/

+ + +

Peter Berenyi took on all comers at SkS back in April 2010.

+ + +

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 16, 2013 at 8:35 am

Unfortunately, Hansen in Figure 4 continues the myth that TSI at the latest minimum was lower than at previous minima. It is now known that this is not correct, the reason being uncompensated degradation of the sensors on which PMOD is based.

See http://www.leif.org/research/PMOD%20TSI-SOHO%20keyhole%20effect-degradation%20over%20time.pdf

and more importantly the admission here:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2011ScienceMeeting/docs/presentations/1g_Schmutz_SORCE_13.9.11.pdf

slides 31-33:

“Observed data do not support a measurable TSI trend between the minima in 1996 and 2008″

+ + +

PMOD is the favourite of solar detractors (even solar “specialists”) because it exhibits a downward trend. They (esp SkS) of course then demand an instantaneous (fast) response in atmospheric temperatures (cooling), but are completely oblivious to solar=>ocean=>atmosphere lag (the slow response) and the fact there are 2 other major TSI composites (ACRIM and IRMB) that either have a very small rising trend (ACRIM) or are flat (IRMB).

+ + +

david says:
January 16, 2013 at 12:21 pm

I absolutely agree with Bob Tisdale. In addition ,Hansen’s quote “despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina.” is wrong. The 2011/2012 la nina reached a max value of -1.0, which is much BELOW normal/average: the long term average +/- stdev of all La Ninas (1949-current) is -1.3 +/ 0.4, and with a median of -1.4… That’s error number 1.

Second error is that only the first 3 months in 2012 had la nina conditions, the rest were neutral. Although the last season is not in yet; the first 11 seasons of 2012 were on average -0.1, with a median of 0.0… Not near a strong la nina, anywhere. I’d rather say 2012 was ENSO neutral.

+ + +

I picked that up too just from a quick skim, couldn’t believe the rubbish I was reading from 3 supposedly competent climate scientists.

# # #

The Hansen, Sato and Ruedy report certainly has generated some “talking points”.

But take a look at Sydney and Hobart. BEST uses Hobart as the NZ proxy early on but Hobart looks nothing like any of the NZ locations.

http://warmingworld.newscientistapps.com/

Shows the “warming” that NZ has received in the last 3 decades quite graphically

Re Gareth’s response to your opening comment Andy:-

Gareth January 17, 2013 at 12:20 pm

Hansen is nothing if not honest. We need a lot more data on aerosols and their impact. It may well be that the increase in pollution caused by the rapid expansion of the economies of China and India is helping to mask warming. What happens when that pollution is cleaned up? A pulse of rapid warming… It’s a Faustian bargain.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talkin-10/#comment-36366

I see this at the bottom of an article covering the BC paper (H/t Climate Depot):-

“Fahey also acknowledges other uncertainties in the study. Although black carbon contributes to warming, the impact of aerosol emissions on climate could end up being significantly positive or negative. “It’s not over yet, he says.” ”

http://www.nature.com/news/soot-a-major-contributor-to-climate-change-1.12225

“…could end up being significantly positive or negative”

Now THAT’S uncertainty.

that is referenced by Gareth in his assertion that Chris de Freitas is “lying”, you will see that the trolls have bombed the twitter feed

e.g
ILuvCO2ILuvCO2: @ClimateComm Yeah right. Old temp records not broken. warmist stunt. NSW highest 50ºC 70 years ago. Victoria’s highest 50.7ºC 103 years ago

Found it. It was a dozen models, not half a dozen.

‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’

Graeme L. Stephens1*, Juilin Li1, Martin Wild2, Carol Anne Clayson3, Norman Loeb4, Seiji Kato4, Tristan L’Ecuyer5, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr4, Matthew Lebsock1 and Timothy Andrews6

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8gkbto14cy8ip2y/ngeo1580.pdf

Page 694 (4 of 6):-

Figure 2 | The change in energy fluxes expressed as flux sensitivities (Wm–2 K–1) due to a warming climate. TOA flux (a) and surface flux (b) sensitivities derived from a 12-model ensemble from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 150-year model simulations forced by a 1% per year increase in carbon dioxide. Also included are multi-model mean values (also in Wm–2 K–1). All-sky short- and longwave fluxes refer to the fluxes from Earth that combine both clear and cloudy skies. The TOA flux sensitivities include the clear-sky OLR (OLR-C), the all-sky OLR (OLR), the clear-sky outgoing solar radiation (OSR_C) and the all-sky outgoing solar radiation (OSR). The NET TOA sensitivity is the sum of the short- and longwave all-sky flux sensitivities at the TOA with positive values implying a gain of heat within the system. The NET at the surface is the combination of the net (downward minus upward) all-sky short- (SW_NET) and longwave (LW_NET) fluxes plus the sensitivities of the sensible (SH) and latent heat (LH) fluxes.

INM-CM4 is the only model exhibiting positive sensitivity for all-sky OLR in the TOA flux (a) comparisons (top, second from left).

William S might be right about the “NET” TOA sensitivity though (is that feedback? not sure). I’m a bit confused about this I have to admit – have to think about it.

“For example, actual empirical data obtained by the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) satellite shows that when the Earth warms, more heat is radiated back into Space, in other words, a strong negative feedback which cancels out the initial temperature rise.”

http://hot-topic.co.nz/climate-of-complacency-2-de-freitas-lies-to-tv3/#comment-36363

He gets it wrong next para with this though:-

“All computer models predict a net positive feedback that amplifies the initial warming. Therefore, the models programmed with the unverified assumption that there is a net positive feedback are fundamentally wrong”

Not so now.

In a recent paper (Stephens et al probably, or Wild et al, can’t remember) there was a comparison between about half a dozen models of performance indicators. One of those indicators was ‘OLR sensitivity’ (I think it was). The Russian INM-CM4 model was the only model in the CMIP5 group sampled that exhibited positive OLR sensitivity, it is also only one of two CMIP5 to mimic observations.

OLR sensitivity is the mechanism William S describes and INM-CM4 conforms to the ERBE observations i.e. the model releases increasing energy to space as temperatures rise. The other models in the sample all exhibited negative OLR sensitivity i.e. they “trap” energy and are therefore too warm.

This is the major point-of-difference that I’ve identified so far that sets INM-CN4 apart and goes some way to explaining the apparent success of the RAS and failure of all but one other CMIP5 models (and now UKMO HadGEM3 since CMIP5)..