Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148452 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by Daublin

$
0
0

Worth noting is that Lemonic’s summary of the science is far from accurate. Here are the four points he dwells on:

“that the Earth is warming”

Yes.

“it’s largely due to us”

Partially is established, but not “largely”.

“it’s going to keep warming unless we do something”

Probably, but it depends on the answer to the previous question. Additionally, note that most people agree that even if we do “something”, it will almost certainly just delay whatever the effects are of a higher CO2 level. There are no serious proposals on the table that will cause CO2 to plateau.

“there’s a significant chance that the consequences will be disastrous.”

Hogwash. There’s little scientific basis for this claim. The majority of the effects of a higher temperature are very good for humanity.


Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by tallbloke

$
0
0

Dave, read my post and you’ll see we are in agreement.

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by lolwot

$
0
0

I will be more interested in Bob Carter’s reassessment when the world continues to warm in defiance of his cooling fantasies.

Do you think skeptics like him will just slink off or do you think they will try and revise history and pretend they never thought the world would cool?

Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by David Springer

$
0
0

Dig it.

Q: What makes a greenhouse gas different from a non-greenhouse gas?

A: A greenhouse gas is transparenent to shortwave radiation from the sun and opaque to longwave radiation from the earth.

Q: Is water a greenhouse agent?

A: Yes. Water is transparent to shortwave radiation from the sun and opaque to longwave radiation from the earth.

The biggest secret in this whole greenhouse hoax is that the global ocean is what creates the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere’s largest role is in establishing a surface pressure of 14.7psi which allows water to remain it it’s liquid phase through a 100 Kelvin temperature range and little else.

Comment on Should we tell the whole truth about climate change? by kim

$
0
0

lolwot, well into a doubling of CO2 the CO2 signal in the temperature record is still not found, making your fears of a large, sudden jump in temperature illusory.

It is not difficult to make the case that a warmer world is better overall. It is also not difficult to make the case that the rate of change of temperature makes a difference in the detriment/benefit ratio.

Last, in a cooling world, it is difficult for you to make the case that we’re heating up too fast.
================

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by kim

$
0
0

You fiddle, and Rauma freezes.
=====================

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by Girma

$
0
0

Pekka

Joining them by a relatively smooth curve as Girma has done gives a totally misleading impression of something that oscillates regularly.

I have not joined any thing!

They are all the 30-year trends for each successive years as below (for hadcrut3)

Period Trend (deg C/decde)
1850-1880 0.053
1851-1881 0.051
1852-1882 0.058
1853-1883 0.064
1854-1884 0.065
1855-1885 0.064
1856-1886 0.062
1857-1887 0.059
1858-1888 0.045
1859-1889 0.033
1860-1890 0.036
1861-1891 0.024
1862-1892 0.013
1863-1893 -0.012
1864-1894 -0.025
1865-1895 -0.044
1866-1896 -0.049
1867-1897 -0.042
1868-1898 -0.038
1869-1899 -0.040
1870-1900 -0.038
1871-1901 -0.031
1872-1902 -0.031
1873-1903 -0.035
1874-1904 -0.047
1875-1905 -0.063
1876-1906 -0.074
1877-1907 -0.077
1878-1908 -0.074
1879-1909 -0.064
1880-1910 -0.069
1881-1911 -0.070
1882-1912 -0.073
1883-1913 -0.069
1884-1914 -0.067
1885-1915 -0.059
1886-1916 -0.045
1887-1917 -0.039
1888-1918 -0.041
1889-1919 -0.034
1890-1920 -0.015
1891-1921 -0.009
1892-1922 0.002
1893-1923 0.000
1894-1924 -0.002
1895-1925 -0.001
1896-1926 0.006
1897-1927 0.031
1898-1928 0.049
1899-1929 0.058
1900-1930 0.065
1901-1931 0.088
1902-1932 0.110
1903-1933 0.121
1904-1934 0.118
1905-1935 0.120
1906-1936 0.126
1907-1937 0.138
1908-1938 0.146
1909-1939 0.151
1910-1940 0.153
1911-1941 0.154
1912-1942 0.155
1913-1943 0.152
1914-1944 0.148
1915-1945 0.161
1916-1946 0.170
1917-1947 0.153
1918-1948 0.132
1919-1949 0.116
1920-1950 0.102
1921-1951 0.083
1922-1952 0.075
1923-1953 0.065
1924-1954 0.058
1925-1955 0.036
1926-1956 0.019
1927-1957 0.003
1928-1958 -0.001
1929-1959 -0.002
1930-1960 -0.014
1931-1961 -0.018
1932-1962 -0.014
1933-1963 -0.012
1934-1964 -0.017
1935-1965 -0.032
1936-1966 -0.045
1937-1967 -0.051
1938-1968 -0.049
1939-1969 -0.044
1940-1970 -0.031
1941-1971 -0.019
1942-1972 -0.011
1943-1973 0.001
1944-1974 0.020
1945-1975 0.030
1946-1976 0.037
1947-1977 0.027
1948-1978 0.033
1949-1979 0.033
1950-1980 0.040
1951-1981 0.040
1952-1982 0.050
1953-1983 0.058
1954-1984 0.079
1955-1985 0.073
1956-1986 0.063
1957-1987 0.052
1958-1988 0.066
1959-1989 0.083
1960-1990 0.091
1961-1991 0.105
1962-1992 0.119
1963-1993 0.124
1964-1994 0.133
1965-1995 0.126
1966-1996 0.129
1967-1997 0.125
1968-1998 0.134
1969-1999 0.151
1970-2000 0.160
1971-2001 0.163
1972-2002 0.165
1973-2003 0.175
1974-2004 0.192
1975-2005 0.188
1976-2006 0.186
1977-2007 0.173
1978-2008 0.171
1979-2009 0.159
1980-2010 0.160
1981-2011 0.162

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by Girma

$
0
0

JC (please delete the previous post)

Pekka

Joining them by a relatively smooth curve as Girma has done gives a totally misleading impression of something that oscillates regularly.

I have not joined any thing!

They are all the 30-year trends for each year successive years as below (for hadcrut3)

Period > Trend (deg C / decade)
1850-1880 > 0.053
1851-1881 > 0.051
1852-1882 > 0.058
1853-1883 > 0.064
1854-1884 > 0.065
1855-1885 > 0.064
1856-1886 > 0.062
1857-1887 > 0.059
1858-1888 > 0.045
1859-1889 > 0.033
1860-1890 > 0.036
1861-1891 > 0.024
1862-1892 > 0.013
1863-1893 > -0.012
1864-1894 > -0.025
1865-1895 > -0.044
1866-1896 > -0.049
1867-1897 > -0.042
1868-1898 > -0.038
1869-1899 > -0.040
1870-1900 > -0.038
1871-1901 > -0.031
1872-1902 > -0.031
1873-1903 > -0.035
1874-1904 > -0.047
1875-1905 > -0.063
1876-1906 > -0.074
1877-1907 > -0.077
1878-1908 > -0.074
1879-1909 > -0.064
1880-1910 > -0.069
1881-1911 > -0.070
1882-1912 > -0.073
1883-1913 > -0.069
1884-1914 > -0.067
1885-1915 > -0.059
1886-1916 > -0.045
1887-1917 > -0.039
1888-1918 > -0.041
1889-1919 > -0.034
1890-1920 > -0.015
1891-1921 > -0.009
1892-1922 > 0.002
1893-1923 > 0.000
1894-1924 > -0.002
1895-1925 > -0.001
1896-1926 > 0.006
1897-1927 > 0.031
1898-1928 > 0.049
1899-1929 > 0.058
1900-1930 > 0.065
1901-1931 > 0.088
1902-1932 > 0.110
1903-1933 > 0.121
1904-1934 > 0.118
1905-1935 > 0.120
1906-1936 > 0.126
1907-1937 > 0.138
1908-1938 > 0.146
1909-1939 > 0.151
1910-1940 > 0.153
1911-1941 > 0.154
1912-1942 > 0.155
1913-1943 > 0.152
1914-1944 > 0.148
1915-1945 > 0.161
1916-1946 > 0.170
1917-1947 > 0.153
1918-1948 > 0.132
1919-1949 > 0.116
1920-1950 > 0.102
1921-1951 > 0.083
1922-1952 > 0.075
1923-1953 > 0.065
1924-1954 > 0.058
1925-1955 > 0.036
1926-1956 > 0.019
1927-1957 > 0.003
1928-1958 > -0.001
1929-1959 > -0.002
1930-1960 > -0.014
1931-1961 > -0.018
1932-1962 > -0.014
1933-1963 > -0.012
1934-1964 > -0.017
1935-1965 > -0.032
1936-1966 > -0.045
1937-1967 > -0.051
1938-1968 > -0.049
1939-1969 > -0.044
1940-1970 > -0.031
1941-1971 > -0.019
1942-1972 > -0.011
1943-1973 > 0.001
1944-1974 > 0.020
1945-1975 > 0.030
1946-1976 > 0.037
1947-1977 > 0.027
1948-1978 > 0.033
1949-1979 > 0.033
1950-1980 > 0.040
1951-1981 > 0.040
1952-1982 > 0.050
1953-1983 > 0.058
1954-1984 > 0.079
1955-1985 > 0.073
1956-1986 > 0.063
1957-1987 > 0.052
1958-1988 > 0.066
1959-1989 > 0.083
1960-1990 > 0.091
1961-1991 > 0.105
1962-1992 > 0.119
1963-1993 > 0.124
1964-1994 > 0.133
1965-1995 > 0.126
1966-1996 > 0.129
1967-1997 > 0.125
1968-1998 > 0.134
1969-1999 > 0.151
1970-2000 > 0.160
1971-2001 > 0.163
1972-2002 > 0.165
1973-2003 > 0.175
1974-2004 > 0.192
1975-2005 > 0.188
1976-2006 > 0.186
1977-2007 > 0.173
1978-2008 > 0.171
1979-2009 > 0.159
1980-2010 > 0.160
1981-2011 > 0.162


Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by William H. Hooke

$
0
0

Judith, I particularly enjoyed your thoughts on climate pragmatism…it seems to me there’s a connection here between that notion and Stephen Covey’s idea that highly effective people have a habit of thinking Win-Win. It’s encouraging to see the discussion moving in this direction. More thoughts at http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=598

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

Girma

I know, but year-to-year variability is much less than the variability over longer periods. Therefore they carry much of the same information and the neighboring points of your curve are not independent enough. Therefore the change from say 1910 to 1940 is not in the proper way independent of the change from 1911 to 1941. Not understanding the importance of this fact means not understanding the minuscule significance of your graph. Therefore you produce a graph that gives a totally faulty impression of significance.

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by kim

$
0
0

b. a public meeting place for open discussion.

Agoraphobia rules climate science. That’s what its corrupted peer review amounted to. That’s why there’s the urge for message control. That’s why there is blindness to all the wares available, openly displayed.
=========================

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by kim

$
0
0

Come to the Casbah.
==============

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

Girma,

I state my comment in another way:

The nearby annual temperatures are not independent, the changes from one year to the next are more independent. Thus the change over 30 years is a sum of 30 changes that are not very strongly correlated.

The change from 1910 to 1940 and the change from 1911 to 1941 contain common 29 annual changes and each only one that’s not common. Thus every annual change affects 30 neighboring points of your curve. This makes the curves behave so smoothly, and this is highly misleading.

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by kim

$
0
0

‘miniscule significance’. And you get all riled up, Pekka. There are Big Lies out there and you are a big enough boy now to go hunting. Gird your loins, hitch up your britches, remember your lines.
===================

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by Girma

$
0
0

Pekka

This kind of errors are typical for those, whose method of study is the search of signals in data or data mining, but who don’t have full understanding of the caveats of those methods (and of course also those who do understand, but want to mislead others).

That is not fair.

I am trying to correct IPCC’s mistake in the following graph.

http://bit.ly/b9eKXz

IPCC compared trends that have different periods 150, 100, 50 & 25 years. In contrast I used a constant 30-years period (1850-1880, 1851-1881, …, and 1981-2011)

IPCC arbitrarily selected 2005 as the end point of all the trends. In contrast, I used every year starting from 1880 as end point.

IPCC used only four trend periods to make its “accelerated warming” conclusion. I used 132 trend periods.

Here is what I got => http://bit.ly/yni1Ug


Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by Jim Cripwell

$
0
0

Let me put his as a new piece to Pekka. I asked you to show where there is a CO2 “signal” in the temperature/time graph; ANY temperature/time graph. You have not provided any answer. I know why. Because there is NO CO2 “signal’, and I suspect there never will be.

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by kim

$
0
0

Warm the world and feed the plant kingdom increasing biodiversity and sustainability all the while providing cheap enough energy to bring humanity out of sunrise to sunset physical labour. Win, win, win, win, win. Who is it that wants to stop this, anyway?
==========

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

As I stated already in one of my early comments, there has certainly been variability in the temperatures, we all have known that all the time. The instrumental data has clear indication of variability with a period of about 60 years, but the whole period is too short for drawing strong conclusions of that. (There’s also evidence of earlier oscillations of roughly the same period, but that evidence is weaker and a different issue.)

What I protested so strongly is that the graph of Girma gave very strongly the impression that the variability has been much more regular than it has been in reality. All this “extra evidence” was spurious, there isn’t anything that has not been known all the time. The evidence is as weak or as strong as it was before.

Comment on Week in review 3/9/12 by Jim Cripwell

$
0
0

Girma, Congratulations on another brilliant graph. Pekka is, of course, completely wrong to criticize it. It is merely another way of showing the same data. It is when anyone interprets the graph that difficulties might arise.

When I saw your first graph, I realised immediatley what it’s message was. Over the whole time period for which we have data, there has been no change in what is happening. The last 50 years are no different from any other 50 years.

What this new graph shows is precisley the same thing, but in a much more stark way. It really is res ipsi loquiter. It absolutely speaks for itself, and Pekka has no grounds, whatsoever, on which to criticize it at all.

Comment on 21st century solar cooling by kim

$
0
0

Blah, blah, blah. The globe is cooling, oceans and atmosphere, R. Gates; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
===============

Viewing all 148452 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images