..but why?

(Where is Ajax and lee and the copper internet loving brigade btw?)

(oh noes, they are waiting for everyone else to do their homework so they can replay high school but better this time  :D :D)

'Climates in the southern hemisphere overall tend to be slightly milder than those in the northern hemisphere except in the Antarctic, where generally it is colder than the Arctic. These colder temperatures are caused by the southern hemisphere's significantly increased water to land ratio in comparison to the Arctic. (Water heats up and cools down more slowly than land.) Also, the southern hemisphere is polluted significantly less than the northern hemisphere because of lower overall population densities (a total of 10 to 12% of the human population). In addition, the southern hemisphere has lower levels of industrialization and smaller land masses (air currents run mostly west and east so pollution does not easily spread north or south).'

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156180/

Double checked - no mention of CO2. ;)

lee wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

'Climates in the southern hemisphere overall tend to be slightly milder than those in the northern hemisphere except in the Antarctic, where generally it is colder than the Arctic. These colder temperatures are caused by the southern hemisphere's significantly increased water to land ratio in comparison to the Arctic. (Water heats up and cools down more slowly than land.) Also, the southern hemisphere is polluted significantly less than the northern hemisphere because of lower overall population densities (a total of 10 to 12% of the human population). In addition, the southern hemisphere has lower levels of industrialization and smaller land masses (air currents run mostly west and east so pollution does not easily spread north or south).' http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156180/ Double checked - no mention of CO2. ;)

No mention of the thermohaline cycle either: wow, what a thorough researcher you are  :D :D

imagine losing at the internet  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

hey, lee: how does it feel mate  :D :) :)

http://itg1.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap14/climate_spatial_scales.html
     


Quote:

Contrasting the climate of the Northern Hemisphere, which is approximately 39% land, with the Southern Hemisphere, which only has 19% land, demonstrates this (see the table below).   The yearly average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere is approximately 15.2C, while that of the Southern Hemisphere is 13.3C. The presence of the water reduces the annual average temperature.   The land reduces the winter average temperature while increasing the average temperature during summer.   As a result, the annual amplitude of the seasonal temperature is nearly twice as great for the Northern Hemisphere. The Northern Hemisphere has a large variation in the monthly mean temperature.

Good post John

lee wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

Good post John

lee can't handle the idea of complexity and so simply says "Good post John" in the hope he won't get attacked for his previous inability to accept the complex nature of the climate system.

In fact, you can see the difference in warming trends between the hemispheres on this graph. (NASA GISS)

---

Looking at the graph, you can see that between 1950 and 2015, you can see a temperature increase of about 0.6 degrees C.

During that time, the CO2 level in the atmosphere has gone from about 300 to about 400. It has not doubled, but increased by a factor of 1.333.

Plugging those figures into the radiative forcing equation,

ΔT = λ*ΔF = λ * 5.35 * ln(400/300) = 1.53 * λ

- where λ is climate sensitivity, ΔT is the change in temperature and ΔF is the change in radiative forcing.

For a temperature rise of 1 degree C for a doubling of CO2, or, using the equation, this gives us 0.27 degrees per (W/m2)

A climate sensitivity of 0.27 gives an equilibrium ΔT of 0.41 degrees rise. (1.53*0.27) for this period. (Note that the actual ΔT will be higher due to the inertia in the ocean temperature etc.)

Even though the current temperature is not at equilibrium, we can see straight away that the warming for this period (1950-2015) is 0.6, which is still higher than the 0.4 from a low climate sensitivity of 0.27, which is what is predicted by the likes of Roy Spencer.

The most likely climate sensitivity is between 2 and 4.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2 (or 0.54 to 0.81degrees per (W/m2))

lee wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

In addition, the southern hemisphere has lower levels of industrialization and smaller land masses (air currents run mostly west and east so pollution does not easily spread north or south)

But CO2 defies the trend?

John says - 'The most likely climate sensitivity is between 2 and 4.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2 (or 0.54 to 0.81degrees per (W/m2))'

So you disagree with the IPCC 1.5c-4.5c? That level is the same as the first report, upped for second and third reports, and now back down again.

No overall change in 30 years of climate science, bizarre.

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 3:21pm:

No overall change in 30 years of climate science, bizarre.

There hasn't been any change in Avogadro's constant either. Not bizarre.

1.5 to 4.5 is correct.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 5:46pm:

There hasn't been any change in Avogadro's constant either. Not bizarre.

So why did the IPCC change it in the first place, first class science?

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2015 at 7:02pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 9th, 2015 at 5:46pm: There hasn't been any change in Avogadro's constant either. Not bizarre. So why did the IPCC change it in the first place, first class science?

A lot depends on the papers that are presented and the data that is available. The overall confidence level must reflect the data. Another factor that can cause changes like this is remote sensing data from satellites. If a satellite malfunctions or is not replaced due to launch failures, then the data will reflect this.

so yes, things change.

Realistically the bottom end (1.5) of the climate sensitivity scale is extremely unlikely given historical data and empirical studies during during major volcanic eruptions.  The top end (4.5) is more likely, but the IPCC is notoriously conservative in their estimates.  There are positive feedbacks (for example methane emissions from Tundra) that were not well enough understood to have been included. That may change yet. 

The Earth's orbit is elliptic by 3.3% .

This is also a factor which makes the Winter's colder in the Southern hemisphere.
It means that the Earth is 3.3% further away from the sun in the Southern hemisphere's winter compared to the Northern hemisphere's winter.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 7:25am:

The Earth's orbit is elliptic by 3.3% . This is also a factor which makes the Winter's colder in the Southern hemisphere. It means that the Earth is 3.3% further away from the sun in the Southern hemisphere's winter compared to the Northern hemisphere's winter.

Your eccentricity figure is correct, and you're right in saying that aphelion occurs in July, with perihelion in January.

However, the greater influence of the ocean in the southern hemisphere has an overall tempering effect that means that the Southern hemisphere has fewer extremes than the North.

There are a lot of factors in play. The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit is just one factor. 

Of course, the ellipse rotates once every 112,000 years. That's called the precession of the perihelion, or apsidal precession.

The other long term effect is called Precession of the Equinoxes. The axis of the Earth gradually spins like a top. It traces a circle in the sky every 26,000  years. 

Superimposed, the two effects together with the axial precession (or wobble) cause the Milanković Cycles, which cause long term variation in climate. 

Bobby. wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 7:25am:

The Earth's orbit is elliptic by 3.3% . This is also a factor which makes the Winter's colder in the Southern hemisphere. It means that the Earth is 3.3% further away from the sun in the Southern hemisphere's winter compared to the Northern hemisphere's winter.

To cut a long story short: this number changes!

...and when it changes CO2 in the atmosphere changes with it due to solubility according to temperature- thus reinforcing milankovitch cycles and the principle of yin and yang.

Today we are mechanically injecting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate we suspect is problematic and you deny all this!

Like Lomborg you agree that fossil fuels should be allowed to warm our kids earth by 3 degrees instead of 2  :) :)

Have you worked out we all know you don't want to post graphs on multi-year ice yet  :D :D :D

No, time-series of sea ice extent are not multi-year ice but you already knew that ten circle jerks ago didn't you buddy  :D :D :D

You just love circle-jerks don't you mr invest tap dood I USE THE INDIRECT ARGUMENT METHOD OF PUTTING MYFINGERS IN MY EARS UNTIL THE VICTIM FEELS PITY AND JUST LISTENS  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 11:07am:

Today we are mechanically injecting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate we suspect is problematic and you deny all this!

But, but, the science is settled. Where did this doubt come from?

lee wrote on Jun 10^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 10th, 2015 at 11:07am: Today we are mechanically injecting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate we suspect is problematic and you deny all this! But, but, the science is settled. Where did this doubt come from?

THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE MEANS THE SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED  ;D ;D

(.. HOW LONG IS A PIECE OF STRING?)