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

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by AK

0
0

I’m sure he meant “winner of the goofiest comment award.”


Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by stevefitzpatrick

0
0

I understand what the RPC values mean. My point is that the actual forcing trajectory has been closer to RPC6.0 (or higher!) so the calculated warming in your graph is a low ball figure…. a cherry pick. Plug in more representative forcing, and the model projections don’t look so good.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Willis Eschenbach

0
0
Ah, yes, the links change with time. My bad for not checking. I've posted it up <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Kiehl07-ClimResvsSensitivity.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>here</a></b>. w.

Comment on Road to Paris: Tracking climate pledges by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #175 | I World New

Comment on Criticism, tolerance and changing your mind by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #175 | I World New

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by David Appell (@davidappell)

0
0

Steve, no. The different RCP values don’t deviate until 2005 — before that they all use historical forcings from historical GHG concentrations. Up until 2005, GISS would give the same result for any RCP. So the label on my graph wasn’t needed, except for the few years since 2005.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Peter Lang

0
0

Kim,

Your point #3. is by far the most important. it tells us there is nothing to fear from warming and it is probably net good, not harmful. Furthermore, if we are reducing the risk of an abrupt cooling climate change, that is excellent.

As an aside, can anyone point to a competent risk analysis that takes into account the reduced risk of an abrupt cooling climate change to offset the perceived damages from a warming climate change?

Comment on Is climate change a ‘ruin’ problem? by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #175 | I World New


Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by stevefitzpatrick

0
0

A decade of RPC6 trajectory (or greater) makes a difference. The CMIP5 average projection for RPC6 (or higher) is >0.25C per decade. That is most certainly not what has been measured.

Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Stephen Segrest

0
0

David Hagen — I’m not a corn guy can agree with you that corn is not the future of ethanol.

I’ll start reading about methanol (and asking CEs their opinion, including Robert Rapier who we both respect) and will check back with you.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by kim

0
0

Laid off from installing solar panels. Whaddya gonna do?
=============

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by David Appell (@davidappell)

0
0

“A decade of RPC6 trajectory (or greater) makes a difference.”

No, it doesn’t, not in the first decade. The difference in RFs are less than 0.1 W/m2 in the first decade, according to my numbers.

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by ristvan

0
0

Great observation on the importance of that earlier post on the new paper co-authored by Webster. +100

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by justinwonder

0
0

I like it. Putin, Czar of Antarctica! It has a nice ring to it.

Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Jim D

0
0

Sure, it is just evidence that things are happening along the lines expected. Perhaps now it will just stop happening and we can go back to normal, or is it more likely to continue and even accelerate, being joined by Antarctica? You can judge from the perspective of what the best science you can find for yourself says, and make your own predictions.


Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Jim D

0
0

The imbalance is very real. Even the skeptical scientists accept it. This is a measure of the distance from equilibrium which is now much wider and more long-lasting than when the earth is in a more natural state as it was during most of the last millennium. We are exerting a steady pull in the warming direction, and the temperature is yielding.

Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Don Monfort

Comment on Climate sensitivity: Ringberg edition by Wagathon

0
0

Climate Change Paradox: If the predictors of global warming are correct, then they must have solved the simulation problem and the models they possess are detailed reproductions of nature. But, to believe there are so many — but, only in Western academia — who have successfully digitized faithful copies of nature is irrational.

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by kim

0
0

He’s off snarling about Wegman, now. Doesn’t he know that’s canned snarl from an echo chamber?
==============

Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by kim

0
0

The point is about the distinction between correlation and proxies. That right axis is not temperature, but the graphs were fabricated to show correlation. So, a nit, and no false premise at all.

Bill’s wound himself up like a clockwork Stokes, but hasn’t any pressure relief valve like Nick.
==========

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images