What is so wrong / offensive about ““natural science of the climate system” ?
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Punksta
↧
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by fizzymagic
I get what you’re saying here, Richard, but I think that Dr. Curry has it more or less correct. We should focus here on the appropriately scientific issues, not the policy issues. Despite many CAGW protestations to the contrary, I don’t believe climate science has nearly as much to contribute to policy discussions as it thinks it does.
That said, the only one of your questions that is really addressable in a scientific way is the first: “how serious are the impacts of climate change?”
Even that question is poorly-posed, because determining the seriousness of the total impact of any climate change would require input from quite literally hundreds of disciplines. Indeed, the simplistic thinking that the results of climate change can be evaluated on a simple good-bad scale is part of what has led to the current situation in climate science. The notion that the current state of the climate is optimal, so that any change will be for the worse, is anti-scientific on its face. Yet it is consistently articulated by the most vocal climate scientists.
In other words, these big-picture, policy-based questions are not very helpful in putting climate science back on the track to being a respectable discipline.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by oppti
Global sunshine variation due to aerosols. Solar dimming is now changing to solar brightening due to clean air act in some parts of the globe.
This causing additional warming since 1980 in the NH.
It is a fact often not pointed out.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Peter Davies
I can’t see in Judith’s post where climate science had been defined as described but agree that the impacts of climate change and climate policy proposals have been given scant attention.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by kennethrichards
How is it that CO2 changes are presumed to have been confirmed as dominating over changes in surface incident solar radiation (via variations in clouds and aerosols) as *the* cause of changes in ocean heat content when (a) the heat trapped by greenhouse gases cannot penetrate past the paper-thin ocean “skin” layer, (b) solar heat energy *can* penetrate past the skin layer and into the surface waters by several meters, (c) a CO2-induced ocean heat content change has never been subjected to empirical tests or experiments with real observational evidence, and (d) the one known experiment (using variations in cloud cover to simulate greenhouse gas forcing) revealed that the heat trapped in the skin layer may only change by ~0.002 K?
—–
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html
“Sunlight penetrating the surface of the oceans is responsible for warming of the surface layers. … Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface. This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer [“0.1 to 1 mm thick on average”], and the level of this warming ultimately controls the temperature gradient in the [skin] layer. …. It should be pointed out here, that the amount of change in downward heat radiation from changes in cloud cover in the experiment, are far greater than the gradual change in warming provided by human greenhouse gas emissions.”
—–
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
“Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2)”
—–
“There is an associated reduction in the difference between the 5 cm and the skin temperatures [in the experiment]. The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by PA
About the same price as real fuel.
Don’t know about peak oil. Robot extraction (think nano-goo) could potentially cheaply extract additional oil from existing wells. Robot burrowers could provide enhanced survey and discovery.
I still like the idea of using nuclear warheads to create underground reservoirs and fracture rock, nuclear weapons are really good at fracturing rock.
Given that most new sources seem to need $50 oil to be justified we probably are headed for $70 oil.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)
Dr. Curry: reference this comment: ”
Deep ocean heat content variations and mechanisms of vertical heat transfer”, I was wondering, how do the models account for geothermal energy? I understand the overall heat flux is about 0.08 to 0.1 watts/m2?
The models should account for this flux, and its geographic distribution. It’s much more intense over oceanic ridges.
I visualize the phenomenon to be a constant flow of energy from the sea floor towards the deepest ocean layers. This in turn sets up a “steady state” condition which transfer the energy upwards in the water column. I haven’t worked on all the ramifications, but it seems to me this ought to be studied in detail.
Eventually they do need to take deep water temperatures over sample areas with high, medium, and low intensity flux to get real data,as well as conveyor belt cross sections to make sure their ocean temperature reanalysis is tied to reality.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by PA
A more serious objection is it is dubious the additional efficiency will justify the additional cost.
The killer app for solar is spray on or stick on organic solar cells that might be only 6% efficient but you can put anywhere.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by HAS
The distinction between climate science (and expertise in it) and good public policy to respond to climatic conditions (and expertise in that) is well worth thinking about.
You don’t see seismologists saying they have the expertise to set building codes. They acknowledge all the other skills that need to be involved. So why would people who are good at running and tweaking climate models (for example) think they have the expertise required to determine emissions policy?
↧
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)
Kenneth: the atmosphere doesn’t “know” whether the source of its energy content is caused by x, y, or z effect. This means the ocean can absorb heat from an air column sitting right above it. It also means the ocean can have a slight difficulty transferring heat to the atmosphere. Water absorbs visible spectrum and ultra violet, this warms it, but if the air sitting above it is slightly warmer then the heat transfer mechanism is changed).
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy edition by PA
It isn’t so much a price thing but resources and pollution.
If the solution to CO2 “pollution” is the extensive use of one of the most resource intensive and dirtiest technologies, you are solving one future problem by creating a complex mix of current and future problems.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Brian White
Hi, Judith, I have had an interest in 2 phase fluid flow for decades. 2 phase fluid flow (even in 5 mm airlift tubing with air moving plugs of water upwards) is not fully understood. But, I have not seen anyone trying to view or treat a cloud as a massive area of 2 phase flow. First simply, you imagine the cloud as water droplets falling down through rising air particles going up. This is a heat exchanger! and the water in the droplets going down is transferring its energy to the saturated air going up. When the air exits the cloud at top, what happens? This air is saturated with H2O and warm, and no longer has to negotiate the heavy water droplets that were slowing its upward motion down, so it is very low pressure, and it accelerates! Accelerating low pressure saturated air going up, means condensation ABOVE the cloud. Does this sound like Makarieva and Gorshkov cloud as implosion theory or is it somewhat different? I think seeing the clouds as an imperfect heat exchanger and condenser inclosed in its own “cloud droplet thermal blanket” will aid everybody in understanding what is truly going on with cumulus clouds as they grow. I think the cloud is growing at top and at bottom, The cloud acting as a barrier and as a heat exchanger, and as a condenser, might help move the conversation closer to reality. At bottom, the cooler larger droplets falling down, are increasing the pressure there and this is probably pulling the bottom of the cloud down. Both by the temperature and physically by the interactions of the droplets with the air particles.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)
Richard, I wouldn’t put other fields UNDER a Climate Science umbrella. Climate scientists are simply collaborators in the overarching Dynamic Systems Analysis. Such an analysis includes a bunch of fields.
Last night I wrote a comment for Tamsin Edwards to digest, which suggested she start hitting the books so she could understand a little bit more about the dynamic system components. I realize you understand the subject, and I think it’s important to make it clear this is a very very very complex problem.
Most climate scientists don’t grasp this idea, they start pushing for moves a, b, c, etc without having any idea whatsoever of the consequences. The ignopedists at SKS and climate gurus like Dr. Mann will have to be largely ignored as long as they don’t step out of their “climate science” milieu.
↧
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by PA
Photosynthesis drives down the CO2 level during the day so any effect is mostly a nighttime effect.
↧
Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by HAS
Only just picked this up. The publication suggests the economies of scope lost in separating out the monopoly elements (distribution and transmission) are low, and it doesn’t consider the benefits of competition and greater innovation on the non-monopoly services.
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by KenW
Tamsin Edwards considers lukewarmers motivation in her thoughtful article, but there are two sides to everything.
TE <i>“Do lukewarmers believe ECS is low because they trust the instrumental studies more, or do they trust those studies because they give answers they want to believe? In other words, is this just the same wolf – political and cultural opposition to mitigation – now dressed in sheep’s clothing?”</i>
This is only half the story. The flip side of the question would be:
<i>Does the climate establishment tend to disregard evidence that ECS might be less than 2C due to a political and cultural <b>commitment to mitigation? </b></i>
How else to explain why the ECS uncertainty range hasn’t been narrowed over the last 30 years?
And perhaps Ms. Edwards should herself consider: How many computer simulation based climate studies would become rubbish if ECS turned out to be only 1.3?
Ms. Edwards’ statement demonstrates that the entire realm of climate science is in fact permeated by political and cultural motivations pertaining to the issue of mitigation.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by beththeserf
They seek it here,
they seek it there,
in ocean deep,
in hot spot sweet,
that demned elusive
‘missing’ heat. *
*Modellers in towers
can’t quite seem ter
manage clouds
↧
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by PA
We have a 55+ year track record of increasing environment absorption, with respect to either time or atmospheric concentration that:
1. Is accelerating.
2. Is over 55% of emissions
3. Is increasing over twice as fast as emissions (last 30 years)
4. Converges with maximum potential emissions below 500 PPM.
That makes a 500 PPM maximum limit a pretty safe prediction.
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Judith Curry: What Are The Most Controversial Points In Climate Science? | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
[…] Full post […]
↧
Comment on What are the most controversial points in climate science? by Lance Wallace
1. The new version 6 of UAH brings it much closer to the RSS results, so both satellite data sets agree on a lower rate of warming (1.1-1.2 degrees C per century) than the surface temperature data sets which depend on poorly sited temperature stations on land and sparse sampling in the ocean.
2) The missing tropospheric “hot spot”
3) The fact that models, if absolute temps are considered, differ from each other by about 3 C, an absolutely huge amount considering the tiny increase since 1880 of 0.8 C.
4) Inability of models to predict the pause
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
