I don’t read it, I just look at all the sexy pictures
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Howard
↧
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Dr Norman Page
Actually if you forget the whole useless IPCC bottom up model approach and look at the natural cycles climate forecasting is reasonably straightforward and obvious.
.The discussion needs to move on from discussing a pause to discussing the cooling trend because in fact we have had 11 years of cooling see
see my post
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
for details and cooling forecasts. This shows that the late 20th century rise is simply the rise to the peak of the millennial cycle which peaked in the RSS series at 2003.6 give or take a couple of weeks no doubt.
This corresponds to the peak in the solar activity driver seen at about 1991 in Fig 14 of the linked post. There is about a 12 year lag between the driver peak and the RSS peak. The lag will vary according to the climate metric used and the region under consideration.
For convenience , realists and skeptics might wish to celebrate the anniversary of peak heat which I calculate as 4th July 2003 at about 4pm.
.
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Basil Newmerzhycky
PA,
All that your graph (below) showed was that in the past 3 decades none of the warming was associated with any solar activity.
Gary,
Here is that chart: Main trend that sticks out is that each warming episode (1910-1940 and 1970-2000) gets steeper and every cooling trend (1880-1910 and 1940-1970) gets shallower. If we are already 14 years past the most recent warming peak (most of it in a cold phase of the PDO), the most alarming thing that stands out is that unlike past episodes, THERE IS NO COOLING. What is the explanation for that…other than the cooling trends have become so shallow that they no longer cool…just briefly level off.
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Vaughan Pratt
Certainly the climate mitigation literature speaks in terms of catastrophes (or used to — you had to go back to AR4 for an example). After all it’s what motivates mitigation in the first place.
However climate mitigation is not climate science, any more than mechanical engineering is physics. Climate mitigation is an engineering subject motivated by real or imagined catastrophes. You won’t find anything about possible future catastrophic climate change in the IPCC’s science literature, neither AR5 nor AR4, other than a brief dismissal of it in AR4 (in connection with a possible MOC shutdown) as “mere speculation”. (I didn’t check AR3 and earlier.)
But I see I should have said explicitly that I was referring to the climate science portion of the IPCC report, namely WG-I. I would only pay attention to WG-III if it had something to contribute to climate science beyond what’s in WG-I.
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Basil Newmerzhycky
Fortunately the only media that buys the bad science presented by skeptics here is FOX and other far right wing/oil/energy friendly outlets that pretend to be news.
As 2014 becomes the warmest year on record, its going to make a lot of “pause” proponents look very foolish that even Fox-like outlets will begin ignoring these bogus claims. Heck, even Rupert Murdoch recently acknowledged AGW.
“I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the (global) warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue.”
Read more at http://www.woopidoo.com/biography/rupert-murdoch/carbon-neutral.htm#5XsTheA5uE1c0ch6.99
and
↧
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by jim2
So, Basil, you reject satellite temperature records that are backed by radiosonde data? Is that true?
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by steven
“As 2014 becomes the warmest year on record”
Waves to C&W stuck under the bus.
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Basil Newmerzhycky
Cherry-picking a specific date is funny. Didn’t most skeptics claim warming ended in 1997-98? Now you’ve shifted the goal posts over a few years to 2003.6? There are quite a few points in the past century that one can cherry pick a small subset to claim a pause…and every one would end up being wrong,
FYI, unlike HADCRUT or GISS data, the RSS data is vertically averaged temperature from the surface up to above 10,000 ft. Did you know that? The time lags that it takes heat to move that much higher, as well as the reduced amplitude of temperature change, plus is very short history (past 3 decades only) make it a pretty poor choice as using for a main determinant of any climate argument.
Something you might want to note in your next science blog.
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Joseph
David, I hope you understand that the science the data and tools have progressed a lot since then. That is what science does in a society where technology gets better and better. But the basic understanding of the greenhouse effect has been around over a century. The greenhouse effect is not a hoax. It is a solid scientific explanation based on physics. AGW is based on an almost certain fact until proven otherwise.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
The linked story, ‘How much does it cost to reduce carbon emissions’, has another 2 X 2 matrix bringing up initial costs and operating costs and that relates to electricity production. Looking at other matrix diagrams we have this one:
From this article: http://ic-pod.typepad.com/design_at_the_edge/2007/11/red.html I’d say the warmists reside in the upper half and skeptics in the lower half. The matrix shows the minds versus molecules aspect of the debate. Also, it’s about the clients. On my less good days I explain it as, these people bring me money. That’s a key element. So the question often is, what does the client need? On the lower half of the matrix we’re looking at our clients. On the upper half that’s not going on as much. I don’t so much tell my clients, this will make you happy. I try to ascertain what will make them happy? Sometimes we may feel we have been prescribed something. It’s expensive and it doesn’t seem to be working. I think it’s fair to say that’s not a failure of the client. Something in the process that should involve more than just the scientists prescribing, isn’t working.
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Joseph
David can you think of a field of science where our understanding of what is going on in the natural world has stopped or gone backwards over time?
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Vaughan Pratt
@DinTX: The warm cloud top, the same temperature as before, is now 100 meters higher which means there is more greenhouse gases below it to resist back radiation from reaching the surface and less GHGs above it to impede radiation to space.
Where the back radiation ends up is irrelevant to global warming because the surface temperature is governed by the atmosphere’s temperature profile, not by the back radiation. (This is particularly clear for Venus.)
The only radiation relevant to global warming is the amount escaping directly to space. Clouds radiate much broad-spectrum FIR, both down (which is why cloudy nights are so much warmer than clear) and up. It is the upward FIR (OLR) that can reach space directly, and when the cloud tops are higher there is less CO2 above the cloud and hence more of the cloud’s broadband FIR can escape directly to space.
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Joseph
And yes other than climate science
↧
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Tonyb
Basil
Happy new year to you.
Presumably as you disapprove of RSS you also disapprove of global sea level being measured by satellites?
Tonyb
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by JCH
RSS does not measure the GMT. I’ve been told that whatever it does measure, it does it accurately. So it accurately measure something else. Good for it.
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Vaughan Pratt
@cd; The Oppo 2009 data ends in 1955 and that plot includes data to 1955. The data is archived here.
Thanks, capn. That was the answer I was looking for to my “If from elsewhere then please say where.”
So the apparent discrepancy with Figure 3 (a) and (b) of Oppo 2009 disappears when the red curve in those figures is removed, right?
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Vaughan, “So the apparent discrepancy with Figure 3 (a) and (b) of Oppo 2009 disappears when the red curve in those figures is removed, right?”
Right, I thought that would be a better comparison for Lamb, who didn’t have much paleo data available.
↧
↧
Comment on 2014 → 2015 by Dr Norman Page
RSS is useful because it provides a consistent instrumental record of relative global change since 1979. The original data from the other non satellite temperature time series have been normalized ,reanalyzed and variously adjusted so as to be highly suspect .
↧
Comment on Week in review by PA
“In very generic terms, all climate scientists are skeptics.”
This is bull****. Pure and simple bull****.
There are a number of scientist who are members of environmental organizations, been arrested at environmental protests or attempted to drag Canadian sports equipment into climate discussion. These people are dyed in the wool advocates.
Some of the numbers in the IPCC report (2000 PPM CO2 in 2200) indicate there might not be a truly skeptical scientist in the upper echelons of climate science. Either that or climate scientists have a herd mentality and the majority are incapable of independent thought.
↧
Comment on Georgia politicians cool to global warming by Tonyb
Vaughan
The captains chart closely follows the borehole data from the university of Michigan and the CET data. We have been warming for some 300 plus years. The giss and Hadley figures are merely staging posts of warming and not the starting post.
Tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
