Saturday, December 14, 2013

Gort upgrades the Climate Changeometer with Ocean Dethermalization

When Gort first visited in 1951, it spent little effort on climate change issues, focusing on other aspects of our planet instead:




Gort returned in 2012 to answer puny human climatologist questions about whether climate change caused particular weather phenomena by making an obvious point:  rather than struggle with theoretical analysis, you can simply use your Climate Changeometer to remove all the excess greenhouse gases and aerosols above natural levels and then measure the outcome. Comments at the link suggested temps on land would respond to Gort quickly, within a week or so, while temps above the oceans could take months and years.

Gort now brings us an upgrade.

The Climate Changeometer now comes with Ocean Dethermalization. The point is to think how current weather patterns are affected by anthropogenic climate change, so it's necessary to consider the vast majority of that heat accumulating in the oceans. Gort instantly removes that heat at the same time as it put the atmosphere back to 1860 levels. The Dethermalizer also depuffenates the oceans from the sea level rise caused by thermal expansion. I'm not sure how quickly the oceans would drop - if it's instantaneous, let's assume Gort will buffer any tsunami type effect.

I'd guess is that if you apply this experiment to a tropical storm a few days away from landfall, it would have a significant effect on that storm. I think this is a helpful way to communicate how we've changed our climate. It's probably more scientifically meaningful on a global and longer term level than about immediate weather phenomena, which might be why there's actual scholarship about it (thanks MMM). On the level of immediate weather, this combats the delayist/denialist dodge that attribution for individual weather events is impossible (allegedly), so there's no point in discussing climate change when we face weather tragedies that are made more likely by climate change.

One other point - I do like the argument that we're living in the Anthropocene such that but for climate change, the individual weather events we see wouldn't have happened. I made the argument a while back, glad to see it more prevalent now.

(And btw, credit to Aaron in the 2012 post for also thinking about ocean heat.)

24 comments:

Russell Seitz said...

Be very afraid.

Gort is extemely vexed that Lagomorphicene albedo change in Australia has led to the invasion of the Moon by jade rabbits.

Russell Seitz said...

I for one apologize to Gort for the misattribution of the previous post.

The press release cited came instead from Al Gort, whose Dethermalizer pod crashed in Nashville shortly before the saucer arrived in D.C.

Hank Roberts said...

No doubt Mr. Gort was paying a courtesy call on the prominent Vegan, Mr. Gore, who lives thereabouts. You'll recall he arranged funding for the Terran Internet a while back, bringing the Galaxy such innovations as the laugh track and lolcats.

Fortunate for the Terrans, you know; given the demand by the Galaxy for new laugh tracks and lolcats, that plan to build a bypass and turn Sol into a blinkenlight has been indefinitely postponed.

"Keep'em laughing and you'll live longer and prosper ...." -- Supreme Judge Scaley, Galactic Court

Hank Roberts said...

ps, Brian in last year's post mentions the consequences "If the CO2 were suddenly removed" from the almost dry stratosphere.

I'd suggest modeling, instead what happens after air travel has sufficiently moistened the stratosphere.

Once there's sufficient moisture available, the Vegan Protocol recommends toggling the climate control bacteria seeded during Gort's first visit, into a reproductive boom.

You recall these:

------
" Three bacterial colonies, namely, PVAS-1, B3 W22 and B8 W22 were, however, totally new species. All the three newly identified species had significantly higher UV resistance compared to their nearest phylogenetic neighbours. Of the above, PVAS-1, identified as a member of the genus Janibacter, has been named Janibacter hoylei. sp. nov. The second new species B3 W22 was named as Bacillus isronensis sp.nov. and the third new species B8 W22 as Bacillus aryabhata.

The precautionary measures and controls operating in this experiment inspire confidence that these species were picked up in the stratosphere. While the present study does not conclusively establish the extra-terrestrial origin of microorganisms, it does provide positive encouragement ...."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090318094642.htm

Alternatively, we could go the Stratospheric Algae Bloom route, but that would pretty much choke off air travel by the humans, until their jet engines get equipped for filter feeding.

All is for the best in this best of possible worlds.

Anonymous said...

we face weather tragedies that are made more likely by climate change.

Right.

Warming oceans have clearly caused more intense tropical cyclones.

Warming atmosphere has clearly caused more intense tornadoes.

Warming atmosphere has clearly
caused more prevalent droughts.

Warming atmosphere has clearly altered areas of precipitation.

No,
http://models.weatherbell.com/global_running_ace.png

No,
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png

No,
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/US_PDSI.png

No,
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/US_WetDry.png


Do they make a machine that can remove the gullibility of those who irrationally believe in crisis?

Eunice

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Eunice, dear, you are forgetting that climate-related damages have quadrupled since 1970, while there is no such increase in geologically related disasters. Do come back when you have something relevant to contribute.

Anonymous said...

Will Eunice ever have anything relevant to contribute?

Hank Roberts said...

> Do they make a machine that
> can remove the gullibility
> of those who irrationally
> believe in crisis?

Yes, they do. It's your TV remote. Change the channel:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-52aa6067/turbine/la-na-tt-handshake-with-castro-20131212-001/600

Anonymous said...

Dilbert,

How much has property value changed since 1970?

Anonymous said...

"Yes, they do. It's your TV remote."

My commune doesn't allow such things.

Can you tell me what else is on this "TV" you speak of?

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

My, an anonytroll seems to be having a problem with elementary logic. If property value is changing for property damaged in climate related disasters, would it not also have changed for geological disasters?

We'll wait while you puzzle this one out.

Russell Seitz said...

The Anonahue neglects the strong correlation between rising global temperatures and steroid abuse by TV weathermen.

J Bowers said...

Research published by US National Academy of Sciences warns climate change impacts could be worse than thought

Sorry Eunice, it's just not your day today.

Anonymous said...

"Research published by US National Academy of Sciences warns climate change impacts could be worse than thought"

Yes, people like to believe sensational newspaper articles full of weasel words rather than actually look at the data - it might, after all, threaten their pre-conceived ideas and they have to start conceiving again.

That sensational article is not fit to line your digital birdcage with.

But just to play along:

"droughts, famines, epidemics"

Can you name a decade on earth in which there were no "droughts, famines, epidemics"?
But even if you could, have all your logic filters failed that you believe the hysterics
of this article?

Droughts are warmer ( at least in summer ) than non-droughts because the heat capacity of soil is diminished when it's drier.
But it is a logic trap that the emotional fall into to project the converse. A warmer world should have more, not less precipitation which governs most drought. That may be why the PDSI chart above that you can't bring yourself to even acknowledge, indicates trends are much less than variation ( meaning the warming effect is irrelevant ) and that what trend there is, is toward LESS drought.

You might have missed it, but obesity is now a larger problem than malnutrition.
And growing:
http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/
In the aggregate, things got that way because production is growing even faster than population.

You do realize, don't you, that most deaths from all causes, but especially from diseases strike during the COLD season and that human deaths reach their low during the HOT season?

Global warming is real but that doesn't mean you should be hysterical about it
anymore than you should be hysterical about the warming from now through March.


Eunice.







a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Who to believe, Eunice or the National Academy of Sciences? Boy that's a toughie!

Eunice, given that your definition of a hysterical response includes any positive action one could undertake beyond breathing, I think you are done providing anything here but comic relief.

KAP said...

Gort! Klatuu borada nikto!

J Bowers said...

"Can you name a decade on earth in which there were no "droughts, famines, epidemics"?"

Can you name a decade that had a stronger landfalling cyclone than the one that recently landed in the Phillipines?

"You might have missed it, but obesity is now a larger problem than malnutrition."

Not for long. That's the point. I trust you'll be saying "sorry for the obfuscation" and handing over your grub when the time comes?

Brian said...

KAP - I just want to clarify that Klaatu was just a figurehead. Gort really ran the show.

Mal Adapted said...

Eunice:

"Global warming is real but that doesn't mean you should be hysterical about it anymore than you should be hysterical about the warming from now through March."

Eunice, if you admit that AGW is real, why not just admit that you don't care about it as long as you don't have to make any personal sacrifices, because what happens to other people doesn't matter to you? You'd be a heroine to a lot of other closet climate realists.

The question is, can you be sure AGW won't affect you personally? Can you afford to be wrong?

GRLCowan said...

One shudders to think of the awful force it must take to crinkle those metal pants.

Anonymous said...

"Can you name a decade on earth in which there were no "droughts, famines, epidemics"?"
Can you name a decade that had a stronger landfalling cyclone than the one that recently landed in the Phillipines?

Was it the just about average water temperature that led to Haiyan?

I've plotted Haiyan's path for you here: http://climatewatcher.webs.com/Typhoon.png


"You might have missed it, but obesity is now a larger problem than malnutrition."
Not for long. That's the point.

So, you believe a prediction even though observations prove it wrong?

Anonymous said...

"Eunice, if you admit that AGW is real, why not just admit that you don't care about it as long as you don't have to make any personal sacrifice"

That warming is real is not the same thing as the erroneous and exaggerated harm that's being peddled.

No one can seem to point to any real harm, certainly not currently.

Mal Adapted said...

Eunice,

"That warming is real is not the same thing as the erroneous and exaggerated harm that's being peddled.

No one can seem to point to any real harm, certainly not currently."

That is the position of the paradigmatic lukewarmer, a species of AGW denier.

Russell Seitz said...

Eunice, Al Gort has not merely klaatu'd barada nikto, he has planted barada nikto, and hoed it and put it in the barn.