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

December 21, 2014, 10:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by bob droege

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Brandon Shollenberger

$

0

0

JimD, it only takes the oceans about 8 to 10 years to catch up based on a variety of estimates. That is of course the bulk mixing layer, not the total oceans.

As far as CO2 expanding the tropics, it basically just expands the moist air surface area, tropics, subtropics what ever, you can compare models with regional temperature to see how well they got that right.

I know you are counting on the oceans coming to rescue your higher sensitivity dream estimates, but reality is going to be a beyatch.

The difference between your estimate and mine will boil down to who has the most realistic assumptions.

---

Comment on Week in review by bob droege

December 21, 2014, 10:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

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

$

0

0

I don’t know looks closest to RSS at the 30 year point, which would be cherry picking, other trends are higher at that point, and would be green, including UAH.

The whole thing is the old blackboard trick of comparing model runs with error bars to data trends without error bars.

Put both sets of error bars back in and the whole nonsense about model data mismatch disappears.

Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

December 21, 2014, 10:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by bob droege

$

0

0

TonyB wonders “Can we just establish that, as with sea level, that your preferred reference points are the satellite records?”

Your presumption is entirely mistaken TonyB!

• The world’s most accurate molecular-dynamics codes predict free energy perturbation (FEP) … not absolute free energy (whose definition is problematic).

• Similarly, the world’s most accurate climate-dynamics codes predict sea-level perturbations … not absolute sea level (whose definition is problematic).

Conclusion  It’s far easier to reliably predict acceleration of sea-level rise than it is to retrodict the sea-level of (for example) ancient Roman fish-traps.

Isn’t that right, TonyB?

Still … there’s *ZERO* evidence that two thousand years ago the sea-level was lower by

 

Conclusion  There is no archaeological evidence that sea-level was twenty+ feet lower in Roman times … which is evidence that the present sea-level rise-rates are unprecedented in the historical sea-level record.

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

December 21, 2014, 10:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$

0

0

captd, as the graph shows the land is warming at 0.3 C per decade, which is nearly 4 C per CO2 doubling. Even if the oceans don’t catch up, or perhaps because of it, this rate of warming is enough to be concerned about.

Comment on Week in review by popesclimatetheory

December 21, 2014, 10:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$

0

0

The countries that do the most to punish themselves about CO2 are really going to feel bad when they figure out that most of what they did was really stupid and did more harm than good.

The countries that do the least to punish themselves about man-made CO2 are really doing the right thing.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by PA

December 21, 2014, 10:33 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

The progressive forces have adopted the information tactics of evil totalitarian regimes of the past, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. Of course they don’t think the regimes that promoted this idea were necessarily evil or that the socialist basis of these regimes is necessarily bad, indicating that their sense of ethics and morals is somewhat compromised.

There is a theory on the left that man is destroying the planet and that his numbers and affluence must be reduced. Since America is a large and affluent country they seem to like to start here.

This explains most of their irrational policies. Take energy, it is obvious that cheap available reliable energy benefits the US. Progressives are doing their damnedest to make energy unreliable expensive and scarce. This is crazy. The US spent most of the 20th century working to make cheap reliable power available at the touch of a button to enrich the lives of all Americans.

The progressives want Americans to live lives of false scarcity and want. They have to lie quite long and hard to rationalize this.

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

December 21, 2014, 10:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Daniel

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by PA

$

0

0

JimD, “Even if the oceans don’t catch up, or perhaps because of it, this rate of warming is enough to be concerned about.”

Being concerned doesn’t mean over selling a “cause” or demanding action for the sake of action. A lot of the land warming could be due to man made changes in the hydrologic cycle. That would include black carbon, agriculture practice, draining swamps, inefficient irrigation. Getting the world to use CFLB and drive subcompact hybrids isn’t going to change that. This over selling Climate Change has diverted resources from more practical adaptation/mitigation plans that will likely produce larger and more immediate positive impacts.

Plus a larger share of the land warming is being produced by “how cares” regions of the higher latitudes in winter.

That is Cowtan and Way’s kriging to save HADcrappy forte. “Robust” warming from -30C to -24C in the Arctic winter isn’t exactly an immediate concern for mankind. Warming does need a bit of perspective from time to time.

Comment on Week in review by Daniel

December 21, 2014, 10:42 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by PA

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

$

0

0

Beththeserf: ‘The differences can be small, but they may lead to radically different consequences, like a railroad’s switch points; the chemist’s trade consists in good part in being aware of those differences, knowing them close up, and foreseeing their effects.’

Let the sirens wail, call forth the Progressive Technocrats to administer the Precautionary Principle and close down all those labs and activities that might result in large changes from small effects. Henceforth, let it be known in the land that any cause that results in an effect larger than the self same cause is outlawed. Health and Humanity will be Protected.

---

Comment on Week in review by PA

December 21, 2014, 10:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Daniel

$

0

0

I lowpass filtered the TSI reconstructions (to get the residual trend) and solar influence seems to explain temperature much better than CO2.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Jim D

December 21, 2014, 10:56 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Tonyb

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by PA

$

0

0

Progressives want the workers to share in the wealth they produce for the rich. They think that a wealthy country should have no one living in poverty, and they believe in a fair wage for a full-time job, and that the wealthy should not have lower tax rates than the middle class via loopholes. Energy likewise needs to be affordable for the poor as a basic necessity along with healthcare and a place to live. The progressive theme here is that a civility of a country is defined by how the least wealthy of their people live.

Comment on Week in review by Tonyb

December 21, 2014, 11:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Jim D

$

0

0

Fan

So let’s get this straight

You pick and choose the satellites you like, choosing those that measure sea levels ( that you approve of) and dismissing those that measure temperatures ( that you disapprove of)

You refuse to answer my very reasonable question as to how much higher you expect sea levels to be by 2100 or what the temperature profile of the oceans will be by that time.

You also seem to believe, without any evidence, that sea levels have been rising steadily since roman times, albeit rising more quickly in recent years, and they will uptick even faster in the future, although you refuse to tell me to what levels.

There have been several high water stands, around the 3rd century the 11th and 16th century. A great deal of water was then Locked up during the little ice ages which was the longest and coldest period this side of the Holocene. It is this that started to melt aroUnd1700 onwards, which has caused a continual rise in temperatures for over 300 years and a subsequent modest rise in sea levels.

I have posted you the graphs relating to sea level changes over the last two thousand years many times, but you don’t seem to read them so I won’t bother to do it this time.

Tonyb

Comment on Week in review by Jim D

December 21, 2014, 11:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Tonyb

$

0

0

You may care a bit about high-latitude land warming fastest of all because that will lead to sea-level rising increasingly faster as it continues in Greenland and Antarctica.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Joshua

December 21, 2014, 9:44 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Jim D

$

0

0

This just keeps getting better: Daniel, Tuppence, Springer, Don, and Chief all in one thread!!!!!

Effin amazing. What are the odds?

You could search all the blog comment threads in the universe, hell, in all the universes, and not ever again find this concentration of quality “extended peer review.”

Count your lucky stars, folkz.

Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

December 21, 2014, 9:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Hugh Jass

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Joshua

$

0

0

Green light for world’s largest planned tidal energy project in Scotland

The project has the potential to power nearly 175,000 homes through a network of 269 turbines on the seabed at Ness of Quoys in Caithness, north-east Scotland.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/19/green-light-for-worlds-largest-planned-tidal-energy-project-in-scotland

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Hugh Jass

December 21, 2014, 10:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Peter Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

$

0

0

What do you know – word perfect repetition. Can’t really compete with creativity like that.

---

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Peter Davies

December 21, 2014, 10:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Hugh Jass

$

0

0

The issue of plastic being a massive polluter of our oceans is something to be deeply concerned about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxNqzAHGXvs. The effect on wildlife in the oceans is severe.

There is a mass of plastic waste floating out in the mid Pacific which has been estimated to be the size of a small continent, at least twice the size of the US, which is an indication of how bad the problem is.

I am, however, much less concerned that this thread has been hijacked by some of Judith’s more outspoken denizens who seem to enjoy the cut and thrust of the ad homs.

And that’s where I will leave it. I need to to pay more attention to other things that I am working on.

Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by David Springer

December 21, 2014, 11:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Delta Dawn

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by Peter Davies

$

0

0

Some people will believe anything. And then repeat it. Case in point, Peter Davies. Then when confronted they run. See Peter Run. Run Peter Run.

http://io9.com/5911969/lies-youve-been-told-about-the-pacific-garbage-patch

Comment on Week in review by Delta Dawn

December 21, 2014, 11:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Kasuha

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics and climate change policy by David Springer

$

0

0

let’s start with 2 very different data sources. Argo salinity and GISP2 temperature and snow accumulation.

Argo salinity shows little change – amongst substantial variation. Salinity reflects the balance of freshwater inputs and evaporation. The GISP2 plot shows snow accumulation increasing to 2000 – and other data shows it still increasing. It is a function of temperature amongst other things. Higher temps and more evaporation.

The temperature changes show large scale changes in temperature that occur rapidly. Considerably more than plus or minus 0.1K and not ever likely to sum to zero over a 100 years. What causes these changes?

An open Arctic, snow accumulation, a low NH summer insolation, a turn down in THC and runaway ice feedbacks?

The US Pacific North-West is – btw – one of the many places where most of the warming is quite natural. I’d suggest that the natural modes are turning down strongly.

https://swfsc.noaa.gov/news.aspx?Division=FED&ParentMenuId=54&id=19504

Comment on Week in review by Kasuha

December 21, 2014, 11:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by angech

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Delta Dawn

$

0

0

Nuclear power was the very first thing I thought about when the idea about need to suppress CO2 production surfaced many years ago. It all seemed to make sense but to my surprise events did not even start unfolding that way. It took a while to understand why. First reason is that green organizations hate nuclear power. This revelation actually helped me to realize who is te actual force behind all this global warming scare.
Second reason is more serious: there is not enough uranium. There are only so many sources of cheap uranium in the world and current nuclear power is generally utilizing them to 100%. Add more nuclear power plants and uranium becomes noticably more expensive as you have to deliver more of it. Technically it is possible to extract uranium from sea water but when you get there, nuclear power is already way more expensive than any other reliable power source. And that’s IMO the main obstacle with the idea of replacing coal power with nuclear.
Uranium plants burning up their own waste would be important step towards mitigating irrational fear of nuclear power out in the public, but won’t solve the problem with uranium supply.
That’s why I hope someone will succeed making a working thorium reactor. I’m not buying most of the hype around thorium reactors but at least their fuel is much easier to come by.

Comment on Week in review by angech

December 21, 2014, 11:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by Climate Researcher 

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by Kasuha

$

0

0

Delta Dawn | December 21, 2014
“You have me confused with someone else”.
The chiefio, perhaps?
You have picked up some of his angst, for sure.
How I look at it is, Fan is a plant by Mosher to make skeptics look good.
He feeds you one liners.
He puts up rubbish arguments , knock them over.
He goes all histrionic,fantastic, anyone reading here will only be convinced that if Fan is a warmist you would not want to be in his club.
Tease him a little bit but leave off the invective,it makes him look better.
Let him walk out on his limbs and laugh gently when he falls off.
But please keep him commenting here.
He is one of the best arguments himself against AGW ever and he keeps going every day.