Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by David L. Hagen

0
0
Download the full book at: <a href="https://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1321487125_document_moran_climatechange-thefacts.pdf" rel="nofollow">Climate: The Facts</a>

Comment on Week in review by EdG

Comment on Open thread by Wendy Thompson

0
0
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube" rel="nofollow">Ranque Hilsch vortex tube</a> <i>"provides empirical evidence that a force field acting on molecules in flight between collisions causes an interchange of molecular potential energy (relative to that force field) and kinetic energy. This creates a temperature gradient in the plane of the force field because only the kinetic energy component affects temperature. That temperature gradient in a steady force field represents the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will tend to evolve autonomously. We note that specific heat (Cp) appears in the denominator of the temperature gradient, just as it does in expressions for the temperature gradient caused by the force of gravity in all planetary tropospheres."</i> Such temperature gradients continue in sub-surface regions of Earth even down to the core. Because the gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, any additional thermal energy supplied at the ccoler (outer) end will disturb that state. The Second Law tells us a new state will evolve and this obviously entails some thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection towards the warmer regions as explained in our group's <a href="http://climate-change-theory.com" rel="nofollow">website</a>. Therein lies the explanation as to how thermal energy from the Sun makes its way to the core of any planet or satellite moon, including our own Moon where core temperatures are over 1300°C.

Comment on Open thread by A C Osborn

Comment on Open thread by rls

0
0

Tony

I believe you are right. And the major problem may be that needed research is being neglected; Curry, Koonin, et al are telling all who will listen that the science is not settled, that interactions in the atmosphere and oceans are not adequately known. My hope is that their voices will soon be heard in the form of new research.

Richard

Comment on Denizens II by Faustino

Comment on Open thread by A C Osborn

Comment on Denizens II by davidsmith651

0
0

I’m one of the original lukewarmers ( http://www.waywordradio.org/lukewarmer_1/ ). My lukewarm view has not materially changed since 2010 except on precipitation (expansion of the dry downlegs of the Hadley cells seems likely and could cause regional agricultural havoc).

One thing that hasn’t changed since 2010 is my “BS detector” alarming loudly while reading science articles on the impacts of global warming. It is highly unlikely (to borrow an IPCC phrase) that a change in something as complex as climate would have nothing but bad effects, yet that’s what the science literature presents. I have the feeling that I’m being hustled. It might be true that some effects are so terrible that drastic action is needed or that one area (a “climate winner”) has no right to cause another area to be a “climate loser”. I could buy those, given evidence. But portraying climate change as all bad smacks of a sales hustle, not science. If you want me to trust you, give me the full story. Otherwise I look at the climate science community the same way I view timeshare salesmen.

My background is engineering.

David Smith


Comment on Denizens II by Jakehearts the accountant

0
0

After reading some of the climategate emails in 2009, I was just appalled that nothing was done in academic circles or by the authorities (deleting emails to thwart FOIA requests). Even then, the so-called investigations such as Penn State exonerated this, ahem, climate scientist. With Penn State, the person who hired this scientist was added to the investigative committee and a week later a whitewash completely exonerated him. What was the extent of the investigation? Well, they interviewed him. That’s it.
All these jokers mentioned in the emails are still practicing in academia or a federally supported agency. Only Richard Mueller is the one scientist in mind who felt as apalled as I am about this whole affair. My respect for academia is about nill right now. Would love to see their science funding cut at least half. We’ll see what happens in 2016.

Comment on Open thread by Don Monfort

0
0
The deltaF they are using in their regression equation is computed from the variable deltaT, yimmy. Does deltaF in that regression vary with deltaT in that very same regression, yimmy? That's all I have for you. <strong>JC SNIP</strong>

Comment on Open thread by Steven Mosher

0
0

“An initial glance suggests you are comparing the climate model predictions with the Berkeley Earth Data and in a reassuring way saying the climate models agree with the Berkeley Earth Adjusted Data.”

1. they are not model forecasts. They are hindcasts.
2. We show both raw and adjusted.
3. The chart doesnt show anything dispositive as I wrote.

The main point of the argument would be this. ALL observation datasets
are MODELS ( estimates) of the truth. all we can show is that the
observed smoothness is consistent with our best models of physics.
Not very strong evidence.

But,
the metric is [in fine print of course] 1950 -2000.
So all you are saying is that the Climate models are programmed to reproduce the past.

NO. spatial VARIABILITY is NOT programed in. duh.

if you want to see how we compare with models look at the slides on our web site.

Comment on Open thread by tonyb

0
0

rls

The climate debate is being managed by a group who are esoteric in the extreme

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/esoteric

Of course you know what that means, but I wanted to ensure nothing had been lost in the translation.

It is this esoteric group who manage the climate debate, control the agenda and hold the purse strings. There is no reason whatsoever for them to cede power and change any part of that process that sees the sort of debate currently going on at CA.
tonyb

Comment on Open thread by Steven Mosher

0
0

Penguin. the data is there the code is there. you didnt even bother to look.

Comment on Denizens II by Conwell Dickey

0
0

I am a semi-retired electrical engineer with BS/MS. I retired from industry in 2007 and have been teaching in various energy related areas since then, including community college and corporate training. From 2012 thru 2014, I was the program manager for the Digital Energy graduate program at the University of Colorado Boulder. My primary areas of interest related to climate change are modeling, energy, and critical thinking.
I have a strong background and continuing personal interest in the behavior and modeling of complex systems and in particular their transient behavior. I believe that there is a strong coupling between energy systems and climate change. In addition, I believe that the control of CO2 emissions will be solved by energy technology breakthroughs rather than CO2 emission control technologies. Much of my interest is in understanding the behavior of electrical energy systems both at the system (electric power grid) and the subsystem level.
The US electric power grid is one of the most complex (if not most complex), manmade systems in existence. However, its complexity is dwarfed by the earth’s climate system. We have a far better understanding of the physics of the electric power grid than the earth’s climate. I don’t believe that we can make long-term predictions about climate change when we are still unable to make solid predictions about the short term, dynamic behavior of the electric power grid. I have not trusted the climate change models for a long time and the ongoing hiatus in warming leads me to trust them even less. Richard Feynman had something to say about the failure of predictions (like the hiatus) by scientists (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0) . I agree with him.
I am a student and teacher of critical thinking skills (http://www.criticalthinking.org/). Intellectual humility (knowing what you don’t know) is an important critical thinking skill that I see lacking in many of the publications and discussions, both by AGW believers and skeptics. In addition, the use of logical fallacies in climate science discussions appears widespread, by both believers and skeptics. I’m especially frustrated by those who write (using logical fallacies) about the fallacies in the thinking of (primarily) skeptics. In the end, critical thinking is about considering deeply and regularly about how you think, not about how others think. My experience with students on this topic is that lack the ability to think critically about GW (and other topics). And we are not setting good examples for them!
I also believe that long term, successful predictions on climate change are impossible to make because technological breakthroughs are nearly always impossible to predict, yet when they occur, everything can change quite quickly. Bjorn Lomborg makes a strong case for this in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. I believe that reductions in C02 emissions in the future will be because of un-forecastable breakthroughs in energy technologies. And I believe that these breakthroughs will happen sooner rather than too late.
Thanks Judith for what you do. I greatly appreciate the ongoing professionalism and balance that you bring to the AGW issue.

Comment on Week in review by rls

0
0

Stephen

The View and The Five discuss news worthy topics, but that does not mean that their discussions are news worthy.

If you are truly a moderate, perhaps moderation in the selection or reading resources would be helpful. This may be one of the biggest challenges today, with so much crap and lies on the internet. As a mentor of young engineers before my retirement, I found that critical selection of resources was an important topic they often had to learn. Perhaps even more so now than when I graduated.

Richard


Comment on Open thread by Steven Mosher

0
0

NZ

There was some silly group who used a method and came up with
.3C per century
NWS has .9C
Berkeley has .64C

1. The NWS and the “skeptics” dont use ALL the data.
2. One is at .3C, the other is at .9C
3. We use all the data and split the difference.
4. Ask THOSE GUYS why they didnt use all the data

Comment on Denizens II by bob droege

0
0

I started out with a stint in the US Navy and served on a nuclear powered submarine and made two trips under the arctic ice cap.
I then spent 14 years as a mechanic at a commercial nuclear power station.
Now I am involved making radioactive drugs used to diagnose cancer and alzheimer’s .

I would like to reclaim the word skeptic, to me it means someone who has examined the evidence before coming to a conclusion.

Not the cherry picking mole hill engineers who tend to post on this site.

Yeah, I am a card carrying Hansenite.

Comment on Denizens II by Jakehearts the accountant

0
0

I might add that I would also like to thank Dr. Curry for giving us laymen the opportunity to express ourselves. Everything I had posted is well-known to many folks here. It’s worth repeating especially to those who are new to this forum. Thank you.

Comment on Open thread by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

0
0

R. Graf “Capn, If I understand you correctly, if you run the models from the year 1000-1800AD you would get an oscillating noise line with peak anomalies about every 15-20 years. Is that a correct characterization in the absence of delta in CO2? ”

I would simple say you get noise. Absent CO2 forcing you only have weak solar and weak volcanic since in model world neither have any significant impact.

“There is no LIA of MWP or can the randomness meander to diverge from the line on 100-yr scales?”

The only significant forcing I see is CO2 so there isn’t any significant meandering because everything else is muted. Volcanic forcing is model as only having a weak short term impact on the atmosphere with no longer term change in ocean heat capacity. The models basically don’t do anything until CO2 forcing kicks in.

“If there is possible divergence from the line how do the models get back on track if random walk takes them off course from historical record?”

Without “calibration” the models would tend to get off track. With “calibration” the model are given a software lobotomy so they don’t stray.

“an you look at the Forster 2013 quote I put in my comment to Jim D and give me your interpretation of what he is saying? Here is the link to the whole paper. Look around line 30. http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mzelinka/Forster_etal_subm.pdf

Forster is basically saying the CMIP5 models had lobotomies and the CMIP3 didn’t. Meaning the CMIP5 models are “over calibrated” and the CMIP3 models maybe under “calibrated” . “there is no indication of any tendency by modelling groups to adjust their models in order to produce observed global mean temperature trends.” Forster 2013.

And they did a fine job of not getting anything right. In the future though the models produce a wide spread, i.e. start getting off track. So the models appear to not be “adjusted to match temperatures” but “calibrated to not run away due to being too sensitive to “natural” variability.

“The inter-model spread of temperature change is principally driven by forcing differences in the present day and climate feedback differences in 2095, although forcing differences are still important for model spread at 2095. Ocean heat uptake efficiency differences between models did not significantly affect model spread.” Forster 2013

Oh my, what could it be? Forcing in present day would be CO2 more than anything and feedback differences in 2095 have one thing in common, they don’t get tropical SST or tropical surface temperatures now and have a range of a few degrees. You need accurate absolute temperatures to determine water vapor, cloud and convective feedback.

The tropical tas’s are all over the place. There is as much or more variability in their initial conditions as there is in their “forecasts”. So discussing Forster or M&F is pretty much a waste of time. The elephant in the room is inaccuracy of actual surface temperatures.

Comment on Denizens II by Peter Hartley

0
0

My skepticism about “official” climate science started in the early 1990’s when I attended seminars discussing official measurements of average global temperatures. It struck me as very odd that the ground thermometer readings would continue to be preferred when the satellite measurements became available. There seemed to be so many obvious problems with the ground measurements. They had very poor geographic coverage, the instruments would surely be poorly calibrated, station moves and site changes appeared to be ignored or discounted, unconvincing arguments about corrections for urban heat island effects were offered and so forth. Looking further, the balloon measurements seemed more scientifically defensible than the ground measurements and appeared to confirm the satellite measurements. How could that be if this was a legitimate scientific enterprise?

The second event that increased my skepticism was the “discernible human fingerprint” scandal in 1995. This was when lead author Santer changed the IPCC report after scientists had signed off on it saying there was now evidence of a “discernible human fingerprint” in atmospheric temperatures. Not only was this added after the fact. It relied on one of Santer’s own papers that was later shown to have “cherry picked” data in an outrageous manner. The silence from the scientific experts was deafening.

The third event was a conference on climate change that I helped organize at the end of the 1990s. The event that included prominent establishment scientists and some of their critics (for example James Hansen, Judith Lean, Pat Michaels and Willie Soon all gave presentations along with biologists, economists and political scientists). At a pre-conference dinner, I was shocked when James Hansen said something to the effect that it doesn’t matter whether the science on CO2 and climate is right or wrong because we have to get rid of fossil fuels anyway.

I was also struck in the same conference by the repeated dismissal of the MWP as only a North Atlantic phenomenon while at the same time, and often in the same talk, the melting of Greenland ice was touted as the major threat of CO2-induced climate change. This has the obvious problem that if it is accepted that Greenland was warmer than now in the MWP why wasn’t ice melting from Greenland a problem back then? How could serious scientists make such obvious mistakes unless they were driven by an agenda as Hansen had indicated?

The Mann et al hockey stick paper came out right around the time the co-organizers (including me) sat down to write up the conference. Great pressure was applied to tout this paper as conclusively proving the case for strong global warming from CO2 emissions. The easy dismissal of a mountain of prior evidence for the MWP from many fields of study based on just one newly published and barely examined study struck me as extremely unscientific. My skepticism was later proven correct when the paper by McIntyre and McKitrick was published. The name-calling and childish treatment of their work basically finished the journey to full-fledged skepticism of main-stream climate science for me.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images