Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147858 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by jim2

0
0

Dr. Curry has predicted cooling for some number of decades. Where’t the beef, Gates?


Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

0
0

Yes, McIntyre is on a crusade against sloppy work…that’s the ticket!

Comment on Week in review by JCH

0
0

The AMO is a wimp. It’s not cooling anything.

Comment on Week in review by JCH

Comment on Climate dynamics of clouds by Ulric Lyons

0
0

“According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings”

What is the distribution of the low level clouds though? If they are more concentrated at higher latitudes, a reduction of lower altitude clouds, and an increase of mid altitude clouds, could both be acting as negative feedbacks to increases in forcing of the climate.

Comment on Week in review by PA

0
0

CO2 and more warmth increase plant growth 50% in the 20th century.

Since less CO2 reduces plant grow and warmth kills far fewer people than cold (most deaths occur during the winter) it isn’t hard to make the case that we should be doing all we can to increase the CO2 level.

Comment on Week in review by beththeserf

0
0

I love those studies where yr asked if you believe in
climate change. As if the term ‘climate change’ isn’t a
tautology, like ‘close proximity ‘ or ‘forward planning.’

In the Farmers/Scientists study above, reassuring
that ’90% of the scientists and climatologists surveyed
said they believe in climate change.’

Comment on Week in review by Wagathon

0
0

It is very, very likely few global warming alarmists care that their opinions are groundless.


Comment on We are all confident idiots by andywest2012

0
0

Michael | November 15, 2014 at 9:48 am

I agree regarding the fascinating worldview. It emanates from the Consensus itself, per the given quotes. And a culture of belief in the certainty of catastrophe is hardly vague, but both specific and audacious.

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

0
0

As discussed here several times, it is impossible to see a long-term forcing signal at less than decadal average resolution. Too much natural variability.

If Judith is predicting that we’ll actually see decadal average temperatures cooling (i.e. not just flat) in coming decades then she should write it up as a ground breaking paper, as she would have knowledge of some external forcing that is stronger than the rapidly increasing GH gas concentrations.

About the only thing that will cause a decadal average temperature to cool in the coming century would be a very large volcano or two.

Comment on Week in review by JCH

0
0

The same number of people die each year, and:

Comment on Week in review by Wagathon

0
0

I used to believe in tree rings but… not so sure anymore.

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

0
0

“JCH | November 15, 2014 at 10:41 am |
The AMO is a wimp. It’s not cooling anything.”
_____
I agree. As Mann has accurately pointed out, it is in a “cool phase”, but this cool phase is being forced warmer by the overall increased energy of the system. Furthermore of course, the Pacific has a much greater surface area to influence tropospheric temperatures, so it’s probably something like an 80-20, Pacific vs. Atlantic split in term of influence on tropospheric temperatures.

Comment on Week in review by PA

0
0

,i.”Mojib Latif: Pause to continue as cooling atlantic masks global warming [http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/pause-to-continue-predicts-climate-scientist.html]“

Latif says the North Atlantic is cooling and the pause will continue for quite a while.

At some point (say 2030) with no increase in temperature (a hiatus) the claims of 2°C or more by 2100 will look increasingly absurd.

If we can meet the 2°C target by doing nothing… that is pretty easy to do.

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

0
0

“It is known that heat deposited in the ocean at the equator is ferried to the poles where it is released into space. That release of heat into space is why it’s cold at the poles.”
_____
Not the much less solar insolation? Wow, write a paper on this remarkable discovery of yours.


Comment on Week in review by JCH

Comment on Week in review by PA

0
0

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Science/story?id=990641

U.S. Deaths by Month, 1995-2002
Total Deaths Avg. per Day
January 1,824,419 7,356.53
February 1,600,464 7,081.70
March 1,694,060 6,830.89
April 1,553,365 6,472.35
May 1,544,836 6,229.18
June 1,461,902 6,091.26
July 1,495,354 6,029.65
August 1,479,771 5,966.82
September 1,452,281 6,051.17
October 1,563,801 6,305.65
November 1,560,398 6,501.66
December 1,729,926 6,975.51
1995-2002 Total 18,960,577 6,488.90

The most people die in January, the fewest people die in August.

Comment on Week in review by mosomoso

0
0

It’s all in how you push-poll, serf.

If you ask people if they like black jellybeans they say they do, just to be all sophisticated and adult. No one will admit to liking the pink or orange ones best. But count the black jellybeans in the average lolly bag and it’s a different story.

I’m hoping to get a Nobel for this critical study, but I want a proper one. Not going to get out of bed for one of those Peace Prizes that fall out of cornflake packets.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Danny Thomas

0
0

John Carter,

I’m no scientist. I’ve read much on the climate change topic. And I have a perspective that I hope you don’t mind me sharing with you.

I don’t see a black and white discussion. I see a scale from AGW to Denier with skeptisism somewhere in between.

I see sufficient evidence to support that our climate is changing, my quest is to discover why. I can’t do the physics myself. Matthew R. Marler is on a quest for discovery relating to a new paper in Science about the warming caused increase in lightening strikes. My understanding of his concern is that there is not sufficient evidence that the increased energy leading to the increase in lightening strikes cannot also manifest in increased warming. This is one example. The “hiatus” heat transferring to the oceans is a recent theory. Examples like these lead me to the conclusion that the science is not settled.

I see that even the so called AGW “consensus” cannot state emphatically that it’s CO2. The terminology is “likely”. So within the black and white debate lies the policy discussion of spending huge amounts of money for CO2 abatement when it’s “only” likely that CO2 is the cause.

I’ve read papers that show the “potential” costs if we delay. But those papers do not account for “likely” technological advancement.

I see equally logical debate that natural variability is at least partially responsible for warming.

My unsupported supposition is that it’s likely a bit of both.

So, for me, I’d prefer that the science be settled more fully prior to spending those dollars as “potentially” those dollars could be misdirected. Do we not have time for further study, and would that approach not be “prudent”?

Please let me know if you consider this to be wrong minded and why, if so.

Comment on Week in review by PA

0
0

2014 is going to be warm in the Pacific because of the repeated El Nino attempts.

I’m looking forward to 2015 to see what happens. Right now it looks like 2015 will be back to normal. All 2014 did is cause a short hiatus to the steadily increasing difference between the GCMs and the actual climate.

Viewing all 147858 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images