Wow, I allowed email notifications of replies thinking I would be notified when replies to the single posting I put up were posted.
Instead it seems I’m getting all replies by anyone to anything.
The only item of note: it appears there are 2 or maybe 3 people who are comprising 90% of all replies in the last 24 hours.
I wonder if the Swedish “Troll Hunter” program is interested in doing some analysis here.
Comment on Week in review by c1ue
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
captd, CO2 is the only forcing that is going to be anything like 6 W/m2 by 2100. This is what matters in the context of future climate. Even those small forcings are having an effect as you acknowledge, so 6 W/m2 is something to consider in that context. Volcanoes and solar variations were important for past climate causing much of the 0.2 C variance that occurred over the past millennium. Now we are at 0.8 C which is 4 standard deviations above the mean and climbing, not coincidentally occurring as the CO2 forcing almost reaches 2 W/m2. These are the kinds of things to evaluate seriously for the future. Put it this way, what do you think the dominant climate effect will be in 2100? Will it still be like the 1800’s and early 1900’s with solar and volcanic variations dominating?
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “Put it this way, what do you think the dominant climate effect will be in 2100?”
Co2 will likely be dominate by then and close to the no feedback estimates. But if there is an “average” volcanic forcing that needs to be considered, then actual temperatures would fall into a different range.
To go even further, if there are no significant volcanic or “other” events, natural variability would approach zero, but every perturbation would start another oscillation.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
==> “Outside of the backhanded slap at James Inhofe for use of a little political hyperbole,”
Classic.
↧
Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Delta Dawn wonders about “Tensors for instance – and what precisely could be the Unger/Smolin/Gromov insights to practical (molecular) simulation science – and what possible significance does it have to the big picture of climate?”
Delta Dawn, your mathematical curiosity is well-founded!
Anashin and Khrennikov’s textbook Applied Algebraic Dynamics (2009) illuminates (with practical examples!) the fabulous 21st century frontiers that Unger/Smolin/Gromov/Baez (et al) are so bravely exploring.
Wonderful questions Have you ever wondered why entropy increases, both in Nature *and* in humanity’s dynamical simulations? And just what *IS* entropy, dynamically speaking?
These 21st century mathematical works freshly illuminate these wonderful questions!
Best wishes for sustained mathematical learning are extended to you, Delta Dawn, and to *ALL* Climate Etc readers!
@book{Anashin:2009zr, Address = {Berlin; New York}, Author = {Anashin, Vladimir and Khrennikov, Andrei}, Publisher = {Walter De Gruyter}, Title = {Applied Algebraic Dynamics}, Year = {2009}}
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
captd, the solar and volcanic forcing have to have significant feedback to explain their temperature effects, so why should CO2 not? In fact you can’t account for the warming since 1950 without lots of feedback on the forcing change, mostly from CO2 in this period.
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, ” so why should CO2 not?”
The biggest feed back for CO2 is water vapor at marginal temperature ranges. Marginal would be where CO2 can increase snow/ice melt. So if there are lots of glaciers and snow fields, CO2 can have lots of feedback. Black carbon and ash though have a larger impact on snow and ice than CO2 so you can’t attribute all that feedback to CO2. Another of the model glitches it would seem.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tonyb
Fan
I was intrigued by your latest science fantasy posting showing a four degree waming during the 21st century. By this time, how much higher do you expect the oceans to be and what will be the temperature profile of the oceans?
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
Interesting thought…transient response. We can adapt to predictability.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by RiHo08
Ooops
October November 2014 not 2015
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
The H2O feedback is not specific to CO2, but solar too. It just comes from anything that produces warming. We know warmer global climates are moister. Clausius-Clapeyron in action.
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “The H2O feedback is not specific to CO2, but solar too. It just comes from anything that produces warming. We know warmer global climates are moister. Clausius-Clapeyron in action.”
I know that, that is why I specifically said CO2s biggest feedback was water vapor at temperature margins. If CO2 adds a degree of equivalent forcing that would expand the relatively snow/ice free zones and time frames. Black carbon can do basically the same thing by reducing snow/ice albedo.
When you get to the tropics where the surface air is already close to 100% relative humidity, increased CO2 forcing is almost completely offset by latent cooling. Every forcing basically has it sweet spots.
↧
Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse
TonyB wonders “How much higher do you expect the oceans to be [at the end of the 21st century]?”
Perhaps your question could be phrased in a more quantitatively nuanced way, TonyB!
TonyB’s Question As we observed the world’s sea-levels rising without pause or evident limit, what Bayesian probability should we assign to the postulate “Sea-level rise-rates will accelerate in the latter decades of the 21st century”?
FOMD’s answer Fifty percent likelihood (or greater) is a reasonable Bayesian weighting for 21st century sea-level rise-rate acceleration.
Conclusion The climate-science evidence has become sufficiently strong that lesser Bayesian weightings amount to the willful ignorance of denialism.
Don’t you agree, TonyB? What is your Bayesian weighting of the proposition that “sea-level rise-rate will accelerate”?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
Vaughn Pratt,
Point taken. I should have left out the opposite being true as I was simply going by what I previously read and the same being mentioned in the article. Thanks for correction.
↧
Comment on Week in review by ordvic
Sorry I misspelled your name.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Canman said on December 20, 2014 at 8:11 pm
“Brandon, interesting thread. It’s hard to expect someone like Max_O to not reject all logic regarding the hockey stick story.”
_______
Call me pigheaded, but its hard for me to accept supposition as fact.
↧
Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Daniel
The Left is a cesspool of the intellect as the quotes you provide show. And there are many more like them that simply reinforce the recklessness with which the Left paints the world and devises solutions to its problems, both real an imagined.
The one consistent thing about the Left is its worship of stasis. Growth but managed growth and the management by technocratic elites who tell everyone else how much and at what rate. The corollary of stasis is authoritarianism. They go hand in hand and won’t work one without the other. This is the intellectual core of the Left.
Based on fantasies and Faustian deals they think we should be grateful for their efforts and sneer when we aren’t. Thus, Obama, Pelosi, Gruber, Mann, Schneider, Strong, Rifkin, Erlich, Carson ad infintum and all of the groupies and acolytes they attract who want the world to stop, to be orderly, to not change, to be guaranteed and perfectly safe. And all the opportunists who hitch their wagon to the Left like Hollywood, the UN, academia, etc. It’s a worldview and I understand the appeal. Guarantees, never any risk or loss, never any pain or anguish. It’s seductive. And wholly destructive.
It is today’s opiate of the masses. Give us your wealth, relinquish your freedom and we guarantee an order to the universe, one without challenge, without messiness, without risk where everyone is equal and happy and tip toeing through the tulips. Let us run the world and there will be plenty for all, no discord or war, no pain or suffering.
EVERYTIME the stasists have gained the power they lust after it has resulted in a blood bath and the only thing equal for the masses was the pain and suffering they endured at the hands of the eloquent elite.
How many times does humanity have to be whacked across the head with a 2×4 before they give up this fatuous, asinine fantasy?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tonyb
Fan
Can we just establish that, as with sea level, that your preferred reference points are the satellite records?
In that case you presumably accept the satellite temperature records which don’t seen to show either warming for the past few decades or any record for 2014
Or are they somehow less reliable than the equally convoluted sea level records?
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
The CO2 effect is one of expanding the tropics more than enhancing them. While the tropical water vapor feedback is delayed more, other areas are getting warmer and moister at the same time which may explain the amount of feedback implied by the temperature record. However, the uneven warming means that the land is responding at nearly 4 C per doubling, and may even be drying leading to a different type of positive feedback due to reduced clouds. This is a transient climate with a strong ongoing divergence between land and ocean temperatures since 1970 (somewhat like that occurring in the annual spring/summer transition but longer term). It’s a sign of a rapid external forcing change that the ocean can’t keep up with.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Brandon Shollenberger
Max_OK:
Call me pigheaded, but its hard for me to accept supposition as fact.
Or do anything to check the veracity of what you consider to be “supposition” if you don’t like the possibility of what you might find. We all understand how difficult it is for a person to actually investigate ideas, even when presented evidence and detailed discussions are made readily available.
It’s far easier to just say, “I don’t know” and make absolutely no effort to remedy your ignorance.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
