“RGates,
Is a half degree of heat since 1880 a lot?”
______
“a lot”? Compared to what?
Comment on Week in review by R. Gates
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by R. Gates
jim2,
I agree. Hence, this statement of yours should have stayed in your mind only:
“That release of heat into space is why it’s cold at the poles.”
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tom Fuller
Pause in warming equals cooling? I’m curious about that. The two phrases do not appear to me to be semantically equal.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
Not sure we can expect sanity from Jimmy Dee.
There are two aspects to the problem. One is thermal inertia. How low does it take for the system to heat up with an solar forcing peaking in the last half of last century?
Perhaps more importantly – what did actually change at TOA?
Cooling in IR and warming in SW. Must be a feedback.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Rob, mostly when you get a forcing change like 11-year solar cycles or volcanoes, you don’t have to wait around for half a century for it to show up, so you seem to be proposing something brand new here.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Davies
Peter +1. The only way that the US would achieve such a target is for it to go into another serious recession and this is getting more and more likely. The US dollar is overvalued as is most of its stocks.
↧
Comment on Week in review by nottawa rafter
Jim D
I see the points both you girma are making. But why does it have to be so simple. We all are products of our linear and binary thinking . There may be many intervening variables that humans have not begun to think of. I have said this many times, but I wonder if the scientists of 2200 will look back at our body of work and all these debates and chuckle at how naive and uninformed we have been. Discovery is not dead
↧
Comment on Week in review by .atmospheric physicist
Yes well the correlation of Earth’s climate with the 934-year and superimposed 60-year cycles in the inverted plot of the scalar sum of the angular momentum of the Sun and all the planets is overwhelmingly compelling, implying with an exceptionally high level of statistical significance, that planetary orbits regulate Earth’s climate. There is no valid physics which can prove that carbon dioxide raises the radiating altitude by more than a mere 1.5 metres, which would have a warming effect of no more than 0.01 degree.
↧
Comment on Week in review by nottawa rafter
Jim D
I read in the NY Times that the % of the Dems advantage in the youth vote had dropped by half since 2006. Just because you are in a different time zone doesn’t preclude you from facing some uncomfortable truths. :)
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tom Fuller
Tonyb, you’re reading the wrong websites. (Honestly…) Obama will start getting the credit he deserves after he gets out of office. I like what the Canadian said.. (paraphrasing) Strongest growth in the developed world… low unemployment that is dropping, millions of people with new access to healthcare… what are you guys angry at?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tom Fuller
+1
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by markx
Spot on, Danny. Hasten slowly, because we don’t know much yet, and we have been accurately measuring ocean temperatures for all of 6 or 7 years.
And economic knowledge, theory and modelling is more of a mess than climate modelling.
Do NOT heed the, “Do something! Do ANYTHING! But do it NOW!!!” clarion call.
↧
Comment on Week in review by tonyb
Tom
Angry? More like Concerned. The US President has been the leader of the Western World since the end of the second world war. Obama seems to have abdicated that position without telling anyone, leaving a gaping hole in the promotion of western interests and security.
There are numerous practical concerns that need attending to, but Obama seems unwilling to face them.
The problem is that although the king is dead there doesn’t seem to be another one in the offing.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
So far the Republicans are showing fear on a lot of issues: Isis, Ebola, Immigrants, Decarbonization, Healthcare, you name it, but have no alternatives or rational contrary arguments, just a lot of hair-on-fire type rhetoric. I don’t think there is any such thing as a calm-spoken rational constructive Republican these days. Fox News is just as bad, with every commenter being of this type too.
↧
Comment on We are all confident idiots by Danny Thomas
Do NOT heed the, “Do something! Do ANYTHING! But do it NOW!!!” clarion call.
Sounds like more chaos to me! :)
↧
Comment on Week in review by Skiphil
Wading through John Carter’s muck brings to mind the adage about wrestling pigs, so I shall pass on to greener pastures and sunnier climes!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
nottawa rafter, as I mentioned somewhere else on this broken thread, forcing explains both paleoclimate and current changes. Why look further? 6 W/m2 where we are headed is a massive forcing in paleo terms, being the difference between geological periods, if not era.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
tonyb, “So, are they saying it was the clouds wot did it? And the sun. Or didn’t do it. Or might do it.”
It should be water vapor increase would increase atmospheric absorption of solar. Since water vapor is mainly a response to actual SST, it doesn’t look like the paper has discovered much other than the atmosphere isn’t all that transparent.
The big question is still what is “normal”?
↧
Comment on Week in review by climatereason
Captain
What is ‘normal’ is one of the things I am trying to find out through historical reconstructions.
What does your graph represent and do you have a link to the article/paper it comes from? thanks
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
That is a reconstruction of the IPWP with trends overall, to 1700 and to 1225. If a megavolcano and general increase in volcanic activity “caused” the LIA, the trend to that point 1225 should represent “normal” which is about the temperatures of 1950 to 1990. Assuming that the LIA ended in ~1880 to 1900, would mean normal is about 0.4C below the “normal pre-megavolcano trend. Since water vapor doesn’t care if SST increases due to CO2 or not, it would mean that about 50% of the warming since 1950 is “natural” unless you pick a below “normal” condition. Even the mean of Oppo 2009 is higher than the 1880 to 1900 guestimate.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
