We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
=================
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by pottereaton
Don Monfort | January 15, 2015 at 2:57 am |
How does Mann destroy Steyn’s ability to make a living by suing him over a few words?
————–
Oh please. If Steyn loses and it costs him and NR millions of dollars, you think he’ll be able to easily find the same kind of employment again? You think he’ll easily recover financially? You think the First Amendment will be not be abridged and freedom of expression more secure? Come on, Don. This is a serious attack on freedom of speech and possibly more insidious than the attack on Charlie Hebdo because it’s coming from within and is far more subtle. An agent of the government is trying to shut up a member of the free press by destroying him and the magazine he writes for. NR is covered by insurance, but this will set back Steyn a lot of money and diminish his prospects in the future. That is what Mann is intending to do to him and Tim Ball and its working. Why do you keep soft-peddling this?
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by PA
izen | January 14, 2015 at 6:13 pm |
For many people, and apparently the vast majority of mainstream scientists working in the field, the standard required to ‘prove'(?!) to them that today IS out of the ordinary has been exceeded for some decades.
Could you explain on what criteria you WOULD judge the evidence is sufficient to persuade you that CO2 emissions causing climate change IS a probable risk?
Or is the evidence required to change your mind pragmatically impossible to obtain?
Well…
The proxies estimates have a number of problems including the fact that the tree proxies have been misbehaving since 1960. This raises questions about whether tree proxies misbehaved in the past. Other sources of evidence would seem to suggest that current warming isn’t unusual. If you could demonstrate that climate scientists believe that it is statistically certain that this is the warmest the earth has been 2000 years that would be a good starting point.
1. We need an accurate attribution of the sources of post 1900 warming for solar, aerosols, clouds/water vapor, GHG, human surface changes, human heat emissions, etc.
2. We need an accurate model of CO2 forcing in the global mixed atmosphere. The effect of the modeled CO2 forcing change (5.35 ln C/C0) is assumed to be linear by warmers and that isn’t necessarily true.
3. We need an accurate modeling of the feedbacks to the forcings.
4. We need an accurate prediction of yearly GHG increase in PPM in the atmosphere in PPM for a given amount of emissions.
Once we reach this point we can compute what the temperature change will be during the 21st century all things being equal.
5. At that point we can discuss whether the warming will be bad or good and do projections of the cost. Up to now warming has been good (net beneficial).
The warmers believed the atmospheric CO2 level was going to zoom moonward. It appears to be topping out at 2 PPM. Simple math says that without a change to the trend we can’t reach the CO2 levels needed to cause significant temperature change due to GHG. If the CO2 levels don’t increase to the IPCC levels the IPCC analysis is meaningless. If the feedbacks are largely negative the IPCC analysis is meaningless. The IPCC basically projected the 1990s climate trends would continue forever and most people are aware that they haven’t. Until predictions bear some resemblance to the observed climate and atmospheric/oceanographic changes, we really don’t have a good guide as to what to prepare for other than weather as usual. Expensive mitigation of what won’t happen is a poor plan.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by AK
<a href="https://onclimatechangepolicydotorg.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/grains-of-rice-japanese-swords-and-solar-panels/" rel="nofollow">Grains of rice, Japanese swords and solar panels</a><blockquote>Greenpeace did much better than many at projecting the growth of renewable energy sources in the 2000s. Their projections were very close to outturn for wind – the 1999 projections were a little below outturn, the 2002 projections a little above. However even Greenpeace underestimated the growth of solar. The projections were nevertheless startlingly better than those of the IEA, who have, as I’ve previously noted, consistently underestimated the growth of renewables by a huge margin. Growth of solar has been exponential, as has that of wind (at least until recently). Greenpeace appears to have done well by following the logic of exponential growth.</blockquote>[...]<blockquote><b>Policy</b> has played an important role in the development of solar to date mainly by providing financial incentives. It will continue to play an important role, but this will be <b>increasingly around removing barriers rather than providing a financial stimulus.</b></blockquote>[...]<blockquote>The rate of growth of renewables is intrinsically uncertain. But the biases in forecasts are often more towards underestimation than overestimation. If you’ve been in the energy industries a while it’s quite likely that your intuition is working against you in some ways. Don’t be afraid to make a projection that doesn’t feel quite right if that’s where the logic takes you.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Rob Ellison
I was waiting for a change in regime since reading this in 1990.
It happened in 1998/2001 and the linkage to global surface temperatures became very obvious. Complexity science says that these emergent properties of complex system derive from interactions of simple components.
In the words of Michael Ghil (2013) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
Complexity science suggests that the system is pushed by small changes in the system past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.
The shifts are not predictable either as to timing or magnitude and the next will happen within a decade or so.
↧
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Wagathon
Outside the parallel universe of Left-leaning Western academia that gave birth to the “greenhouse effect” of AGW Theory and sees the rest of the globe as living in the hottest world ever (and, underwater if not for Obama) — all thanks to US-capitalism and the modern age of clean water, sewage treatment, modern medicine, and etc. — it now appears that more and more scientists are willing to admit that “global warming” has gone sideways for nearly 20 years and counting, despite increases in atmospheric CO2 that is mostly being put there in ever-increasing fractions by China and other developing countries.
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Rob Ellison
I posted this just above. Excuse be for repeating here – but things are not quite as simple as continuing CO2 rise and no temperature rise. Some of us predicted the plateau – and we may anticipate the next more or less extreme climate shift within a decade or so.
I was waiting for a change in regime since reading this in 1990.
It happened in 1998/2001 and the linkage to global surface temperatures became very obvious. Complexity science says that these emergent properties in a complex system derive from interactions of simple components.
In the words of Michael Ghil (2013) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
Complexity science suggests that the system is pushed by small changes in the system past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.
The shifts are not predictable either as to timing or magnitude and the next will happen within a decade or so. In the light of complexity science the arguments from both camps of the climate war are not remotely in the right ball park.
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Eli Rabett
You truncated that a bit.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Peter Lang
The CO2 abatement cost with solar is about $200 to $600 /tonne when all costs are included. That cannot be justified. Even if the abatement cost could be reduced by a factor of 5 or 10 it’s not justifiable. And that is highly unlikely to be achieved.
Furthermore, renewables are not sustainable http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/. They cannot power modern society. They rely on fossil fuels to sustain them.
They provide about 1% of global energy and are going backwards (previously provided 100% of world energy supply).
Regulations have been set up to favour them. But that is unjustifiable. The only reason for the regulations is ideology and gullible people who follow cultists beliefs.
↧
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by PA
I’m willing to accept a better figure if you have one.
http://freethoughtnation.com/blasphemy-laws-around-the-world/
At least two high ranking elected officials in Pakistan who opposed Aasiya Noreen’s execution have been killed. There are 8-16 countries with capital punishment blasphemy laws and Muslims are pushing for sharia law in many countries where they are minorities .In countries like Nigeria without a blasphemy law the vigilantes perform the service.
https://selfscholar.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/blasphemy-laws-in-the-middle-east/
It seems that most of the remaining Muslim countries have some sort of 1-3 year jail sentence for what would be considered blasphemy.
Evidence seems to suggest the percentage of Muslims against blasphemy is quite high.
http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/12/13-countries-where-atheism-punishable-death/355961/
There are 13 countries that have a death sentence for atheism so there are some upsides to Islamic law.
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Danny Thomas
Ordvic and PA,
Re: Ordvic’s post of 1/14 at 4:32 (Sry, don’t know how to link energy storage). Thought you’d be interested in this: http://news.discovery.com/earth/california-takes-lead-in-developing-energy-storage-150115.htm
Regards
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by pottereaton
Don Monfort | January 15, 2015 at 1:42 pm |
You are ill-informed, kimmy. Kerry is a wuss, but there is no credible evidence that he ever got a medal by making up stories in an after action report that he wrote himself. Don’t believe everything you read in a book or on the internet.
—————
The doctor who treated his “wounds” had a different opinion.
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by nottawa rafter
Ghil’s description is so elegant and all encompassing, I don’t know how it could be improved on.
↧
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Peter Lang
AK,
What is wrong with the bits you’ve quoted is that:
1. The subsidies for solar and wind are huge. !00% for wind and much higher for solar.
2. Exponential projections from a very low base are meaningless for sustained future projections, especially when you realise the cost is being funded by the tax payer and other electricity consumers.
↧
Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by kim
All three self-inflicted. Two during enemy action, once blowing up a pile of rice, ‘ol Ricebutt heself.
The man was a danger to himself and others.
==============
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by PA
Oxygen is measured in percent. CO2 is measured in PPM.
Oxygen is about 21% of the atmosphere.
The O2 level is dropping about twice as fast as CO2 is rising – so burning down rainforests is having about as much effect as fossil fuels.
↧
Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Peter Lang
AK,
See Slide 10 here and not the irony in Slide 14. Note that you are arguing for that.
↧
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by CMS
Arrhenius, the originator of the specification of CO2 and the Greenhouse effect said in 1908,
“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by R. Gates
“It’s called reversion to the mean…”
_____
This kind of linear thinking being applied to a nonlinear system is further testimony to your Pseudoscientific Skills of Excellence. Congratulations!
In looking at this graph:
One can see that the zonal wind stress was extremely negative over the “hiatus” period and negative IPO. So even a “reversion to the mean” by your simple linear expectations, would send the zonal wind stress back to positive along with the IPO, and we’d get more tropospheric warming. End result: even your own pseudoscientific analysis is not internally consistent with what the data is telling you. More likely, by actual scientific analysis, when the IPO goes back to positive, s this:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar/
↧
Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by jim2
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
