Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

November 16, 2014, 8:00 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Willard

$

0

0

Stephen Segrest,

This comment by Isaac Held who was quoted in the MIT article is probably the best interoperation you’ll find of what to make of this study:

“The paper is not challenging the physics of climate models; its value lies in helping the community interpret their output. “While this study does not change our understanding of the fundamentals of global warming, it is always useful to have simpler models that help us understand why our more comprehensive climate models sometimes behave in superficially counterintuitive ways,” says Isaac Held, a senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory who was not involved in this research.”

---

Comment on Week in review by Willard

November 16, 2014, 8:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

$

0

0

Fabio Generatti left a comment at the Auditor’s this week. My favorite bit:

The comparison of our reconstruction with data from Labrador and Baffin Island: You have to keep in mind that the climate of the central Quebec-Labrador Peninsula at an annual time scale is very different from the climate of the Labrador coast or the Baffin Island. For example, our reconstruction has null and negative correlations with summer temperatures over the Labrador coast and the Baffin Island, respectively (see fig. 2 of our paper).

http://climateaudit.org/2014/10/13/millennial-quebec-tree-rings/#comment-740376

An army of crickets has invaded that discussion while auditors are parsing policies on self-plagiarism.

Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

November 16, 2014, 8:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Willard

$

0

0

jim2 provide a link to the letter, I added the reference trends. The reason I use the Oppo study and the Indian/Western Pacific is that they have less noise than the higher northern latitudes. As you can tell by the shifting jetstream/POLAR VORTEX, there can be considerable less than globally indicative weather changes. Since “global” mean has only varied a degree or so, it is unlikely that CET would give a perfect representation of Global average conditions. It is a good overall reference, but the AMO would likely over ride a global temperature reduction due to volcanic activity.

That is a comparison of Oppo, BEST, CET, GMSL and the Indian Ocean. From what I have seen, the IPWP typically lags volcanic/solar forcing by around 21 years. But since all volcanoes don’t have the same impact due to a variety of reasons, there isn’t a fantastic fit.

That use Crowley et al. Volcanic with one of the 10be solar reconstructions. With very small changes in forcing it takes time for things to happen.

Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

November 16, 2014, 8:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$

0

0

This should have been here. http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/15/week-in-review-35/#comment-648080

Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

November 16, 2014, 8:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$

0

0

Capt. D,

Some very interesting charts. Here’s what we need to try and dissect related to volcanic vs. solar effects, and I think the mega volcano of 1257 is a good test point: big volcanoes has the same net effect as reduced solar activity, so how to distinguish true volcanic forcing from actual solar output changes. It also must be remembered that the period of 1225 to 1275 was the most active volcanic period in the past 2000 years, and the mega volcano was simply the capstone event of that period. There is very little doubt that less solar was going into the IPWP during that period, especially given that much of the volcanic activity of that period was right in the heart of the IPWP geographically (i.e. location matters when it comes to volcanoes). The question that seems unclear to me is how much of the reduced solar during the 1225-1275 AD timeframe was volcanic, and how much was actually reduced solar output. That heat content of the IPWP took an nosedive at that point seems fairly certain, and given the importance of the IPWP to global weather patterns, this was indeed a “gateway to the LIA” event, as the MWP came to a rather abrupt end from an ocean heat content perspective.

Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

November 16, 2014, 8:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by R. Gates

$

0

0

willard as king climate baller you would and do use anything to justify your actions. That tells me you have no honor.
You could honor the name change regardless of how others act.
Your behavior reminds me of the child who thinks smoking is ok because they see their peers or parents doing it.
Pointing to Judy is a rather sly form of one of your favorite fallacies..
her too.

brilliant climateball

you had a choice.
I observe your choice.
that is all.

Comment on Week in review by PA

November 16, 2014, 8:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on We are all confident idiots by Rob Starkey

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Huh?

How do you get 6 W/m2?

You might get 4 W/m2 total (an additional 2 W/m2). 6 W/m2 requires 800+ PPM and that just isn’t going to happen.

And this is “topical” warming, not deep penetration like SW radiation.

From the 200 zettawatts the ocean is supposed to absorb since 1960 the transfer efficiency is about 20% (about 0.2 W/m2).

Going to take a while to warm the ocean that way when 80% of the added forcing goes back to space.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Rob Starkey

November 16, 2014, 8:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by climatereason

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by PA

$

0

0

Joshua

One can easily argue that most CO2 mitigation activities make no sense simply because the specific activities would not do enough to warrant incurring the cost of the activity. You seem to try to illogically argue that one must support all CO2 mitigation or they necessarily are ignoring the potential risk that additional CO2 might lead to a worsening of conditions.

Your position is logically flawed.

We seem to agree that higher levels of CO2 might, someday lead to a worsening of the earth’s climate somewhere. We also therefore must agree that it may lead to an improvement in conditions. We both seem to agree that there is no reliable evidence to claim that we know if this will actually occur, where this might occur or when it might occur as changes in other conditions seem to be able to dominate the system over timescales of importance to humans.

Current CO2 mitigation activities will have virtually no impact on the shape of the long term CO2 growth curve yet the cost to implement them often can take away the funding needed to build and maintain critical infrastructure. Good infrastructure saves lives. In a world where governments must cut spending to manage their budgets, how does it make sense to not have spending on building and maintaining infrastructure the higher priority.

Whether more CO2 leads to better weather or worse weather overall, the one thing we know is that there will be always be periods of adverse weather. If you accept this as truth, then advocate building and maintaining the right type of robust infrastructure at local levels to prepare for the inevitable true future.

---

Comment on Week in review by climatereason

November 16, 2014, 8:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Mick Bovary

≪ Previous: Comment on We are all confident idiots by Rob Starkey

$

0

0

Rgates

It will be interesting to see when the reduced ocean heat content (modelled) actually translates to lower atmospheric temperatures. A couple of months ago you sent me a graph of the ocean temperatures covering the MWP period to modern day which showed the ocean temperature then, being warmer than now. Can you repost so I can keep all the material I have gathered into one place? Thanks

The gateway to the LIA appears to be much later than the period you quote.

“Reconstructing medieval April-July mean temperatures in East Anglia, 1256-1431

Kathleen Pribyl • Richard C. Cornes • Christian Pfister

Received: I 7 February 20 I I Accepted: 9 October 20 I I / Published online: 28 October 20 I I

“The reconstruction period contains decades of warmer spring-early summer temperatures (for example the 1320s to the early 1330s and the 1360s) as well as colder conditions (for example the late 1330s, 1340s and the 1380s).”

The average temperature drop over the whole period was from 13 to 12.4°C, but after the 1380s cooling the LIA set in. ”

tonyb

Comment on Week in review by Mick Bovary

November 16, 2014, 8:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Vaughan Pratt

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by climatereason

$

0

0

Yes, how strange that the stands are empty in a post that’s only a month old, with only seven posts above it.

Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Vaughan Pratt

November 16, 2014, 8:55 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Mick Bovary

$

0

0

Thanks for the pointer to the Romps et al paper, Matthew. But how does it bear on the role of the ocean in climate science?

Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

November 16, 2014, 9:01 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Tom Fuller

≪ Previous: Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by Vaughan Pratt

$

0

0

R, Gates, ” so how to distinguish true volcanic forcing from actual solar output changes.”

I am coming to believe that you cannot distinguish between the two. At least not in a convincing way. You can get a fair indication of the initial atmospheric effect, but the potential lags related to ocean circulation are a serious problem. What I do see with paleo is that you can get a pretty good indication of average conditions regionally, but it you try to average all the regions you are just smoothing the data to death. The IPWP though does correlate very well with “global” and does represent a lion’s share of the energy. Land at least in the NH tends to amplify IPWP changes by around a factor of 2 and likely more is there is a larger glacial extent.

Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Tom Fuller

November 17, 2014, 4:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by brent

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$

0

0

China is good at playing diplomatic poker. Doesn’t really translate into much in the way of reality.

China’s leadership has been running scared since Tienaman Square. They’re just as scared now as they were 20 years ago.

But hey, they’re great at that diplomatic poker stuff…

Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by brent

November 17, 2014, 4:23 am

≫ Next: Comment on We are all confident idiots by physicistdave

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Tom Fuller

$

0

0

Pop goes the Tight Oil Weasel??

Oil price slump to trigger new US debt default crisis as Opec waits

Falling oil prices and and US shale drillers drowning in a sea of debt could be the spark for a new credit crunch

This rush to pump more oil in the US has created a dangerous debt bubble in a notoriously volatile segment of corporate credit markets, which could pose a wider systemic risk in the world’s biggest economy. By encouraging ever more drilling in pursuit of lower oil prices, the US Department of Energy has unleashed a potential economic monster and pitched these heavily debt-laden shale oil drilling companies into an impossible battle for market share against some of the world’s most powerful low-cost producers in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec).
It’s a battle the US oil fracking companies won’t win.
The problem is that much of America’s shale oil is expensive to produce and the industry is comprised of numerous small companies who were forced to leverage their operations with debt

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11231383/Oil-price-slump-to-trigger-new-US-debt-default-crisis-as-Opec-waits.html

GOLDMAN: Everybody In Texas Is Resigned To Lower Oil Prices

In a note to clients over the weekend, Goldman equity chief David Kostin writes that the firm went to Texas this week to meet with portfolio managers, and those conversations “started and ended on the topic of oil.”
“Although still stunned by the ferocity of the selloff,” Kostin writes, “everyone we met was resigned to the idea that crude prices would remain low for several years. Although we met many Longhorn alumni, we met no Energy bulls

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-on-cheap-oil-2014-11

Comment on We are all confident idiots by physicistdave

November 17, 2014, 4:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on We are all confident idiots by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by brent

$

0

0

John Carter wrote:
>I think that I speak to the general reluctance to consider that a multi million year increase in the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases would naturally tend to accumulate energy and slowly (but increasingly, and non linearly) change the basic stases systems that stabilize and drive our climate, while simultaneously of course continuing to absorb and re radiate more thermal radiation atmospherically at the same time, on an ongoing basis, and would naturally thus ultimately shift climate.

Am I the only person here who has finally figured out that our friend John Carter is, as they used to say, “pulling our leg”???

No normal English speaker writes that way — e.g., “basic stases systems” — except as part of a practical joke!

Really, try to parse the sentence above: “multi million year increase” and all the rest of it.

Anyone want to bet that JC does stand-up?

Dave

---

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Joshua

November 17, 2014, 4:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on We are all confident idiots by physicistdave

$

0

0

phyciusistdave -

Personal attack? It seemed you were above that. Disappointing.

Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by jim2

November 17, 2014, 4:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on We are all confident idiots by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on We are all confident idiots by Joshua

$

0

0

The Department of Energy has been a hindrance to oil E&P, they had nothing to do with the shale boom. Some companies may go bankrupt, but the lower oil price will have a silver lining. It will force companies to husband the wells they already have and find new techniques to maximize production. The debt problem as stated in the article probably won’t materialize, but if prices drop enough, it could happen. Just not holding my breath on that one.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

November 17, 2014, 4:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by jim2

$

0

0

Physicist Dave, “I think America does has a BS problem, but of course that does not mean every single American does.”

American BS is a combination sales and coping. Just about every American community has tall tales. If you work for Ford you wouldn’t want to say your product is almost as good as a Dodge.

Americans come by it honestly. Since we are mainly immigrants from just about every nation in the world, you get a blend of folklore. High latitude cultures seem to be the best at creating larger than life images probably because of those long winters with not much better to do. Do you think the Norse just flipped a coin to come up with Iceland and Greenland?

If you really want to experience folklore in the making, buy an American, Aussie and a Brit fisherman a drink or two to prime the pump.

Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by JCH

November 17, 2014, 4:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on We are all confident idiots by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$

0

0

The DOE was major in shale oil. You do not know the history. It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Congress will okay a pipeline and nobody may come. Just like when GW thought ExxonMobil would rush back into Iraq and they said no thanks, and why did you go to war you freakin’ idiots? Congress wants low oil prices. Why oil supports Republicans is beyond me. You want moderately successful greenies running up the price. I remember when Odessa, Texas was almost a ghost town. When my son went to medical school there, it was a boomtown. Now it could become a ghost town all over again. If the Saudi’s have staying power, lot’s of people are about to be laid off and lot’s of companies are about to go broke. The Texas miracle could soon be the Texas nightmare. In North Dakota a man might have to plant wheat and punch a few cows to earn a living. Lol.

Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by JCH

November 17, 2014, 4:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by Girma

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate/Energy Policy and the GOP Congress by JCH

$

0

0

The DOE was major in shale oil. You do not know the history. It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Congress will okay a pipeline and nobody may come. Just like when GW thought ExxonMobil would rush back into Iraq and they said no thanks, and please don’t tell us you went to war for the oil? Congress wants low oil prices. Why oil supports Republicans is beyond me. You want moderately successful greens running up the price. I remember when Odessa, Texas was almost a ghost town. When my son went to medical school there, it was a boomtown. Now it could become a ghost town all over again. If the Saudi’s have staying power, lot’s of people are about to be laid off and lot’s of companies are about to go broke. The Texas miracle could soon be the Texas nightmare. In North Dakota a man might have to plant wheat and punch a few cows to earn a living.