> I agree when you write the all figured out part.
Indeed, daveandrews figured it all out.
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Willard
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey
Michael
So you are concerned about sea level rise but are not somewhat less concerns about it being a dire threat even though the rate of rise has been pretty steady over the last decade and there has been no evidence the massive acceleration that you feared would cause damage.
Doesn’t the fact that we now think that CO2 stays in the atmosphere a much shorter time than was believed a decade ago lessen your fears of immediate action being the only answer of avoiding concentrations above 500ppm
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Lucifer
MODEL: IPCC5 (RCP8.5): 4.2C/century
MODEL: IPCC4 Warming High: 4.0C/century
MODEL: Hansen A: 3.2C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: Hansen B: 2.8C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC4 next few decades: 2.0C/century
MODEL: Hansen C: 1.9C/century ( since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC4 Warming Low: 1.8C/century
———————————————————————
Observed: NASA GISS: ~1.6C/century ( since 1979 )
Observed: NCDC: ~1.5C/century ( since 1979 )
Observed: UAH MSU LT: ~1.4C/century (since 1979 )
Observed: RSS MSU LT: ~1.3C/century (since 1979 )
MODEL: IPCC5 (RCP2.6): 1.0C/century
Observed: RSS MSU MT: ~0.8C/century (since 1979 )
Observed: UAH MSU MT: ~0.5C/century (since 1979 )
———————————————————————
No Warming: 0.0C/century
It’s not surprising to have opinion fill in the voids.
The faithful can say, well NASA GISS almost (though at the low end ) validates the models.
‘Deniers’ can say, well UAH MT mean almost no change for more than a third of a century.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Michael
Rob,
When there is a “pause” in the Keeling curve, let me know, I’ll be very pleased.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by JustinWonder
Judith writes,
“There remains a strong social contract between scientists who are funded by the government, and the IPCC that supports the government’s political agenda. The feedbacks supporting this social contract in principle can be reversed; it remains to be seen what, if anything, will trigger this reversal. I suspect that it will be the climate itself, if the hiatus/pause/slow down continues.”
After enough time passes, we will know the truth. However, in the long run we are all dead.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Michael, “I was far too optimistic in our ability to co-ordinate a global response to AGW.”
With the exception of BRIC countries there has been a reasonable amount of progress towards improving energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions. The US which has avoided most of the “one world” nonsense has actually done rather well, most impressively by using agriculture to because a “carbon” sink, even though it doesn’t offset all emission sources.
Are you sure it is lack of progress or lack of your type of progress?
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Bad Andrew
“I was far too optimistic in our ability to co-ordinate a global response to AGW.”
You must be discouraged that your expectations have not been met.
How sad.
Andrew
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey
Michael
It appears you rely upon your system of BELIEFs and do not rely upon facts and data. The issue is will AGW or will cAGW happen.
Warming is not necessarily bad
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Michael
capt,
Are you sure about that?
The US did quite well in reducing emissions….via recession.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Lucifer
“That is if you use a atmospheric reference. Physics doesn’t require you to pick the most difficult frame in fact it tend to force you to look for the simplest frames, then a simple one dimensional model rocks.”
Well, for the still atmosphere, which is the basis of the ‘simplified expression’ of the IPCC cheats. It imagines the radiance, applied to an atmosphere that has been determined by circulation, but doesn’t get the chance to move the energy of radiance around after CO2 forcing.
Manabe and Strickler computed the Radiative Equilibrium 1-D atmosphere and the lapse rate would be ‘auto convective’. Adding more CO2 makes the atmosphere more ‘auto convective’. It doesn’t mean that warming isn’t likely,
but it does mean the ‘simplified expression’ is imaginary because the atmosphere will move energy around in ways that are likely to emit more energy to space.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Michael
“It appears you rely upon your system of BELIEFs and do not rely upon facts and data. The issue is will AGW or will cAGW happen.” – Rob
The Keeling curve is facts and data…..you seem rather disinterested in those facts and data.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey
Michael
Didn’t US emissions get reduced by an increase in the use of natural gas and by a higher percentage of use of more efficient vehicles? Didn’t this use of natural gas happen in spite of the actions of the US government?
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by JCH
We now know the rate in the 20th century was more likely 1.2mm per year than 1.7mm. It’s just plain nutty to multiply 3.2mm times 100.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Lucifer
“Lucifer, like a monster whose intent is to fool us all into energy poverty and starve children in Africa. Something like that? Are you scared?”
No, I don’t believe in monsters,
but if you’ve had children, you’ve been through the ritual of:
1. being summoned to the bedroom
2. turning on the light and verifying no monsters under the bed
3. turning off the light and going to sleep, only to return to step 1
Evolution has left us with lots of inclinations to irrationality that won’t disappear anytime soon.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Wagathon
<blockquote>[T]he inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead... leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research… [and] political bodies act to control scientific institutions… [and] scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of. ~Richard Lindzen, ‘Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?’ ( Rev. 9/’12)</blockquote>
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Rob Starkey
Michael
LOL–the Keeling curve does nothing to prove AGW is a net negative.
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Carrick
Jim D:
Why blame the models for 15 years when they do OK for 60 years including that 15. This should be a red flag for skeptics that 15-year trends are not representative enough of the model behavior to draw any conclusions from. This is an AR5 graph that gets too little attention.
The problem with this argument is models were tuned for that 60-year period to match the surface temperature data. While it would be a really bad thing if they couldn’t reproduce the 60-year trend, simply reproducing it doesn’t demonstrate the models “got it right”, but are simply able to replicate what we already know.
A posteriori comparisons of a model against a data set is known as “verification”. It does not “validate” the model. When validating models, you always prefer to look at “out of sample data” when possible, but at the least data which were not consciously used to tune the model output.
That’s why recent 15-years of data are somewhat interesting, but I as I’ve commented above, I question the ability of the models to resolve features with that short of a duration.
If we focus on other data, such as ENSO statistics on mean absolute temperature, most of the models fair pretty poorly. So it looks to me like there is a fair amount of develop required.
Really you should have been alerted there’s a problem with your logic by the fact that the models have such a large range of climate sensitivity. There’s no way to reconcile that models with a sensitivity of 2°C/doubling with one that is 4°C/doubling. Clearly one of those models is flat wrong.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Willard
> Warming is not necessarily bad.
It’s not necessarily good either, Rob. Chances are it won’t be that good:
HOWEVER, just because something can’t be reliably quantified, this doesn’t mean you can’t assess risks. Many components of projected future climate change will clearly be detrimental to agricultural productivity – very high temperatures are known to harmful, and so (obviously) is reduced water availability. Increased CO2 fertilisation will probably have beneficial effects but it’s not clear how much this will offset the negative effects of high temperatures and droughts. Since we don’t know how these things interact, there are risks of the negatives outweighing the positives.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/ipcc-ar6/#comment-50130
That’s from Richard Betts, so I guess you could wave it all away with and in favor of invisible hands.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Michael, “The US did quite well in reducing emissions….via recession.”
The net carbon sink started before the recession, shale gas use increased in spite of the recession and more conversion to clean coal and or nat gas would have happened if the recession didn’t happen. So yes the recession mainly high fuel prices with respect to available income, did contribute, but there was a lot more that just that.
The biggest problem is coming up with truly affordable improvements that the BRIC will copy. No one cares to be forced to change. They need inspiration., most often of the financial kind
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Ron C.
It is astonishing how the In-crowd continue to project themselves onto others. They accuse skeptics of motivated reasoning, subservience to funding sources, cherry-picking data, intimidation and malicious attacks on reputations. Alarmists so obviously engage in all of these themselves and take no ownership of their own behavior.
It would be hilarious if so much blood and treasure were not at stake.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
