Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

0
0

When it changes a theory.


Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Tonyb

0
0

John

Third line down the word should be ‘obvious they are not very good…’ the word is not bivouac. the iPad has a mind of its own…

Tonyb

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by JCH

0
0

The LIA is a temperature record. The MWP is a temperature record. 2014 is a temperature record. Just watch what is about to happen.

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

tonyb, Mosher is just messin’ wid ya. As far as “global” temperature goes, the LIA was around 0.9 C cooler than today and the MWP was about the same as today. Regionally, temperature swings more than offset most of the weak “global” climate signal especially when longer term averaging is used.

When you use the tropics, the real heat source for “Global” temperatures,

Which happens to have a 94% correlation with GISS global btw, even though it it is only 44% of the globe, you get a better picture of what is going on than with CET or kriging to the nether regions of the poles.

Since there are a few pretty good tropical ocean reconstructions you can get a better idea of what the “global” MWP/LIA temperature range was.

Now Mosher and the minions will make a case that nether regions of the poles matter since you have to have a real “global” anomaly and once you include Arctic Winter Warming and Sudden Stratospheric Warming and convert sea ice to land, without weighting for actual energy involved, temperatures match theory better, but they are running out of nether region locations to manufacture data for aren’t they? So unless they krige up a new “global” where CET has a higher than 94% correlation, the tropical oceans and especially the Northern Indian Ocean are the teleconnection sweet spots.

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by cwon14

0
0

Matthew,

This is Mosherism. I’m relating the AGW claim as it is delivered to the street levels and exposing a rather obvious contradiction. Steve wants to ignore the public Gruberesk claims of a generation and tell me what they “really meant”. I become the idiot in his narrative rather warming advocates.

The sales job was and is about “radiative heat”. There a dozens of back stories but more human co2 was suppose to make the Earth warmer but somehow was outweighed by reality. So we really can’t even define what we are talking about that “everyone” might even agree to as a start. You’ll note in these consensus claims how much can’t even be agreed to about what was said now or in the past. Yes, clearly more co2 warming is a radiative heat claim as delivered to the public.

We might ask Bill Clinton here to define “is” for us. Of course “heat trapping” is stupid but it’s the framework of the Green AGW meme for decades. I should Mosher’s dirt for observing the quality of the AGW junk mail for the past 35+ years?

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Steven Mosher

0
0

Skeptics Deny the LIA

“Allen vehemently rejected the idea that warming is an established fact. ”

Jack Murphy, a Republican of Cumming, who chairs the Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee and sits on the powerful Rules and Appropriations committees, was skeptical that global temps are rising

.

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Steven Mosher

0
0

It’s pretty simple guys.

Skeptics deny that its getting warmer.
on the other hand
Skeptics argue that the warming is natural.

You see they are not interesting in finding the best explanation, they are only interested in denying what the other side says.

If I say its warming since the LIA, all manner of skeptics of skeptics will
say “thats not settled”
If I say the warming since the LIA is due in part to man, they will say
No the warming we deny is natural.

Their goal is not to find the truth and state it with the appropriate caveats and uncertainty estimates. Their goal is to say Not X. Anyone can say not X. Takes no study whatsoever, all you need is a commitment to say no.

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Rob Ellison

0
0

Michael,

I do hope things are progressing more smoothly after all your travails. We used to say these things are sent to try us – but bugger that.

Cheers . .


Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Steven Mosher

0
0

according to cwon

“There are cloud feedbacks, ocean feedbacks etc. etc. and the sink isn’t defined.

So, when humans burn stuff and create black carbon, and that black carbon ends up on greenlands ice sheet, and when Anthony watts argues that this contributes to the ice melting.. you think anthony is full of crap?
Go tell him.

When Roger Pielke Sr. argues that changing land use changes the temperature records, you think he is full of crap?
go tell him.

When a skeptic argues that the climate is sensitive to initial conditions and chaotic, I note you are there to tell him that he is full of crap.

So, your position is that it we cant know if it was warmer in the LIA?
The Thames froze magically at above zero?
Treelines moved cause trees are in on the hoax?
trees are blossoming earlier for the hell of it
species are migrating cause hell its fun.
The sea level is rising because water is magically being created somewhere..

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Rud Istvan

0
0

Cwon, actually not. Inhofe wrote and published a 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax, citing Genesis 8:22 and his faith that ‘God’s still up there’ as evidence that it is ‘arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate’. That is regretably clear religious based true complete denial, not a scientific statement about natural variability in relation to whatever warming impact GHG like CO2 have.
You can see him actually say this on Youtube EKd6UJPghUS. Another reason I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by phatboy

0
0

Mosh, don’t you think you’re being just a wee bit disingenuous there?

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by steven

0
0

Out of context and not a direct quote.

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by rls

0
0

Mosher

There are many at CE who respect your contributions, me included. However these recent comments are not helpful, and are off the mark; your descriptions of skeptics are totally distorted.

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Will Janoschka

0
0

For the perusal by JC and denizens in 2015. Perhaps this POV is so outside of mainstream climatology a giant jc snip is appropriate.
———————————————————-
suricat says: January 2, 2015 at 2:41 am
Will Janoschka says: December 29, 2014 at 4:36 am

“Firstly, a happy and prosperous New Year to all! In whatever your endeavours may be. :) ”
Thank you, best wishes back to you! Your expressions are clear and well worth pondering. For your pondering, my expressions from a different POV , EE, electro-optics engineer. I hope I can be as clear.

(“Planck’s equation/integral uses a “surface property” (maximum) to formulate the “maximum surface spectral radiance”. That equation has nothing to do with what “is radiated” at any frequency, only with the maximum, with a finite impedance of space.”)

“I find this confusing for the analysis of ‘atmospheric radiation’ because one can only ‘assume’ the total radiant energy passing through a ‘fixed hypothetical laminar area of atmosphere’, thus, ‘virtual watts’ passing through this ‘lamina’, with energy/radiance loss ‘assumed’ by the intervening atmosphere from a ‘previously’ ‘fixed hypothetical laminar area of atmosphere’ in the general direction of/from ‘the source’.”

Indeed Planck’s equation cannot be used for any “radiation” (radiative flux). The equation can be used to calculate two opposing radiances, the difference of these radiances in each direction, and at each frequency band, determine both direction and magnitude of any detached radiative flux. That detached radiative flux has zero proper time and independent of the motion of the generator of each “radiance” The detached radiative flux “is” affected by both gravitational force and the actual velocity of the transferring media, (not significant in this atmosphere).

“Due to scattering and refraction by atmospheric mass entities (lensing by suspended liquid mass entities and latent products are for another post) much of the energy from the source doesn’t achieve an emission through the second lamina, but is by to/ ‘assumed’ to be ‘replaced’ by losses to/from the neighbouring ‘laminae areas’ of the second lamina from the first ‘laminae areas’.”

This is true except at radiative equilibrium at a particular frequency. Here the particular gas mass is already emitting in the opposite direction the exact amount absorbed, or that gas is changing sensible heat and temperature. The whole mess of changing direction and in and out wavelength is also consistent with Maxwell’s equations, and Kirchhoff’s laws.

“Thus, “Plank’s equation/integral”, when used WRT ‘atmospheric physics’ is nought but ‘statistical assumption’ IMHO! However, I think you’ll agree. ‘We already know the “finite impedance of space”. It’s ‘the “speed of light” in vacua’!’”

To the extent that c = (permittivity 0 x permeability 0)^1/2, in this near space. Way over yonder, not so much. How fast is space moving?

(“Any change to this impedance, including antenna gain, and opposing radiance, at that frequency, must affect that number. A director, or lens can exchange solid angle, for a different surface area. “Radiance” remains the same.”)

“I find that there are ‘exceptions’ to this. “Impedance” and “gain” live in different ‘scenarios’ (though, I like your ‘antenna’ analogy)!”

“Opposing radiances at the same wavelength generate ‘podes’ (nodes) and ‘antipodes’ (anti-nodes) where ‘peak to peak’ amplitudes are either ‘amplified’, or ‘suppressed’ respectively! These are important details for understanding the behaviour of EMR.”

No! The opposing radiances (field strength) need not be phase coherent as are standing waves (static reflection of one radiance from an impedance discontinuity)! The opposing field strength always limits the amount and direction of any resulting detached flux.
For careful analysis Physicists use optical depth, the path length where transmission of modulation equals (1-1/e) 37% in each frequency band.This is fine for logarithm heads. I use the shorter 50% transmission and piecewise summation. At each 50% interval, there is a delta T which determines the flux “added” by the immediate lower level, (your lower “lamina”). However this lower lamina, being at radiative equilibrium passes “all” accumulated radiant flux without attenuation.
The temperatures and delta temperatures are not set via thermal radiative flux, but by existing lapse rate whether dry or saturated, thus at each lamina, the temperature is above that for radiative equilibrium. This is how the convective and latent heat is added to the exit radiant flux. On this planet no exit radiative flux need originate from the solid or liquid surface.
Beyond the sparky stuff, the hardest for me, is the observation that the whole tropospheric column can rethermalize with a time constant of six minutes at solar eclipse! What mechanism/phenomenon can move sensible/latent heat at the rate of 2 km/minute? I am convinced that all of the Clim-Astrologists together have not the competence to understand the atmosphere of this planet! All they have are fake statistics, with no meaning whatsoever.

“Best regards, Ray.”
The same, and what a “wonder”-full planet! Let’s all try to wonder already! -will-

Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Rob Ellison

0
0

Unless you have a line to God and know otherwise – as I said – changing the composition of the atmosphere is taking far reaching action without knowing the consequences.

The certainty is abrupt and more or less extreme climate change that may or may not be exacerbated by any of a number of anthropogenic changes.

What is to be done about it is a different question.


Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by PA

0
0

Steven Mosher | January 2, 2015 at 2:26 pm |
It’s pretty simple guys.

Skeptics deny that its getting warmer.
on the other hand
Skeptics argue that the warming is natural.

This is bs.

1. It is much warmer than it was 200 years ago.
2. The ocean takes a long time (century scale) to come equilibrium, so all things being equal the ocean will continue warm for a while. The warming of the atmosphere was basically an impulse change relative to the ocean response rate.
3. Most of the warming is natural and preceded the CO2 change.
4. The percentage of natural vs man made warming is a matter of some debate.
5. The man made source attributions are fairly well known. About 3/4 of emissions is from burning things we find in the ground and 1/4 is from burning things we find on top of it – the “on top of it” part incidentally destroys 0.5 gT/y of sinking capacity.
6. The natural vs man made contribution to the CO2 increase is a matter of some debate.

If we shot everyone living in the tropics, the CO2 increase would stop in about 8 years. If we stopped using fossil fuel the CO2 level might stabilize depending on how fast we burn forest.

If we level off in the 12 gT/y range for emissions the CO2 level will plateau in the 500-550 PPM range This means we have experienced the bulk of CO2 induced warming.

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Jim D

0
0

It is a major difference in climate, comparable with entering a different geological period if we get to 600-700 ppm by 2100 as would be expected with continued emission per capita growth on top of population growth. Restraint is needed rather than experimenting with the earth’s climate in this way. Given the state of knowledge on rapid climate change, anything else is just reckless.

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

rls, Yep, Mosh is trying to make a philosophical point to a practical crowd. There is no skeptical handbook and no organization of skeptics, just people that have diverse opinions. To some, 1 degree of warming over one and a half centuries isn’t really warming, especially when the past 20 years haven’t warmed much at all. Georgia in particular hasn’t experienced any warming, in fact most of the Red states are blue temperature wise. The UK hasn’t experienced any significant warming as tonyb and his extended CET seem to indicate. “Global Warming” requires very specific attention to detail and careful kriging or adjustment to tease out. Not something your average “not a scientist” can do.

The guys and gals from Georgia probably just see this.

It takes a true scientist to see this.

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Jim D

0
0

Even kim might prefer a 350 ppm climate to a 700 pm one. This is the choice we face at this time. Closer to 350 or closer to 700. Policy matters.

Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by pokerguy

0
0

Rud,
Agree completely. Agw’s a hoax, and paeans to God’s wisdom in creating an atmosphere lowly man could not injure, do much harm. There are times I wish Inhofe and Rush Limbaugh and the like would keep their mouths shut.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images