Stephen, was unaware of your stuff except through obliques at JoNova. Will look into it as time permits.
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Rud Istvan
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Steven Mosher
she would probably say that it CAN be doubted. Many forms of ignorance are possible. It’s just not interesting to doubt it because it rests on so much other
functioning science.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
kim wrote:
“Well, he must have believed the blade when it emerged so magically from his Mannometric Machinator.”
Magically? (How so?) It was calculated.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Rud Istvan
Rob, why be astonished? The whole CAGW theory was ‘mad’ from the beginning, yet it not only emerged, it captured the UNFCCC, the IPCC, and some governments. Dutch tulip bulb mania, and all that.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Steven Mosher
dont expect to find a single number that you could test.
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Don Monfort
Still not good, doc. The principal component of the paint in your analogy is water vapor. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not have the effect of blacking out anything. It just makes it a little more opaque. How much more? You can do the math. It won’t be catastrophic, unless there is a big positive water vapor feedback.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
“I’ve always been a supporter of The Saturated Greenhouse Hypothesis.”
Then you’ve always been wrong. See the sidebar (page 37) of Pierrehumbert’s great 2011 article in Physics Today, titled “Saturation Fallacies”:
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
“I look at the transitions from glacial to interglacial and see that warming is extremely rapid,”
Define “extremely rapid.”
It’s not even as rapid as today’s warming.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
Rud: The graph comes from observations. It’s independent of anything Arrhenius or anyone else said.
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
Kim: no, it isn’t.
Look, any journal in the world would love to publish a paper demonstrating that the GHE is false.
They’d also love to publish a paper showing that the Planck law is all wrong, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or general relativity. But these things, also, are not going to happen.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
That’s a nice term, “functioning science.”
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by David Appell (@davidappell)
“Available solar is close to 1300 Wm-2″
Not really. You have to divide by 4 to account for the Earth’s rotation, and multiply by 0.7 to account for its albedo.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Don Monfort
Our own gatesy promotes the latest excuse, for the pause that is killing the cause. So, if not for da ballcanos and da negative IPO thang, we would be freezing our buttocks off.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tonyb
Vuk
Yes, I saw your comment. I sold your email to Leif a few months ago for an undisclosed sum…
Just joking…
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review by John Smith (it's my real name)
just went back and tried to read Mann’s entire paper beyond abstract
what the heck is that?
“delayer”?
“swift boating”?
will that be a “peer reviewed” paper?
talk about delusional disorders
↧
Comment on Week in review by Don Monfort
Steven, I am sure that in your case and Judith’s it is money well spent.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Tonyb
Don
If correct, just think how warm the LIA would have been if it wasn’t for all those big volcanoes continually spewing out aerosols.
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by PA
AK | January 9, 2015 at 10:45 am |
From your link:
“Sigh”, you again.
AK – there was an absurd argument that fossil CO2 is pollution. This a bald faced, premeditated, irresponsible, irrational, unsupportable lie.
I pointed out that fossil fuel CO2 is superior plant food. It isn’t earth shatteringly mind bogglingly better, it isn’t “end world hunger” better, it isn’t CO2 fertilization better, but it is better. End of story. Have to do a field test to find out if it noticeable in practical situations or just a measurable phenomenon.
Warmatistas make great hay of gnat sized differences all the time.
Your “The plants won’t grow less, they’ll just open their stomata a little wider” means the plant consumes more water. That alone will have a retarding effect on plant growth. Bigger problem is chlorophyll is C55H72O5N4Mg.
Nature discriminates against C13 twice in the photosynthesis process. The discrimination increases with higher CO2 in current plants (plants at 280 PPM don’t discriminate as much because they are starving). Ancient plants with 5 to 10 times the CO2 would presumably discriminate more.
About the only way to find out how bad C13 is to run a study. The difference could be muy poquito or it might be significant.
↧
Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by Steven Mosher
david appel
“Mann et al’s work says nothing about AGW, since it is a reconstruction of pre-instrumental temperatures. ”
“Spatially resolved global reconstructions of annual surface temperature patterns over the past six centuries are based
on the multivariate calibration of widely distributed high-resolution proxy climate indicators. Time-dependent
correlations of the reconstructions with time-series records representing changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations,
solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols suggest that each of these factors has contributed to the climate variability of
the past 400 years, with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing during the twentieth century. Northern
Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least)
AD 1400.”
Mann begs to differ.
↧
Comment on Week in review by John Smith (it's my real name)
I did learn something though…
if I scratch out a polemic
and begin the first paragraph ABSTRACT
I can get published in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
