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

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by PA

0
0

Well, the basic problem is in the decade when emissions increased over 45% the GHG forcing increased 0.2 W/m2 from 22 PPM more CO2.

Projecting that backward GHG is responsible for about 1.05 W/m2 to date.since 1900 (115 years).

The IPCC talks “limiting” the forcing to 6 W/m2 by 2100 and contends it could exceed 12 W/m2 by 2100 without drastic action.

Even if (a big if) we project the 0.2 W/m2 forward and assume the effect is linear not logrithmic that is only about 1.7 W/m2 more forcing.

Someone is crazy. The IPCC and their adherents need to generate some defensible projections. We can achieve the IPCC goal by doing nothing.

I guess Dr. Curry is right – we should shutter the IPCC, their work is done. We don’t need to discuss emissions in the post 2100 period – we will be out of fuel.


Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by hockeyschtick

0
0

AK says “Back-radiation is diffuse! Don’t you know anything?”

Sure, but when I point my IR thermometer (which has a shield blocking rays other than line-of-sight) at the clear night sky it typically says the temperature is 2-3C, which by SB equates to the ~324 W/m2 backradiation shown in Trenberth’s budget. This is yet another straw man to evade answering a simple thought experiment question. Do you seriously believe that NONE of the 324 W/m2 backradiation can be concentrated by a parabolic mirror? I can prove to you that it is from experimental data, but let me know your opinion.

So AK, assuming at least a portion of the 324 W/m2 backradiation can be concentrated by a parabolic mirror, does the focal point warm, cool, or no change?

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Jim D

0
0

HS, how well does a solar cooker work under cloud cover. There can still be 100 W/m2 but it is diffuse. Are you going to cook anything? Think next time.

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by mwgrant

0
0

Rob Starkey

Steve Mosher writes–“For the policy-makers the issue is making the best decision in the face of unresolved uncertainties.”

For the record, I wrote that and Steven quoted it. The problem for your perspective is just that—it is your perspective, your bias. Why show up if you subscribe to the ‘key constituency’ model? Why argue about anything? Why linger on these pages? Live is too short.

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Peter Davies

0
0

Joshua, no ad hom intended or implied. The relevant quote from Judith that I was writing about is: “Activism and advocacy by editors of scientific journals reduces the credibility of the journals, introduces biases into the science, and interferes with the policy process that is informed by science.” The content of Dr McNutt’s editorial is a side issue.

Comment on Intermittent grid storage by Bernd Felsche

0
0

Good grief! Somebody can read the periodic table! ;-)

This has been my point about electrolytic storage limits for quite some time. Unfortunately, most wishful thinkers don’t understand the basics of electrolytic storage cells.

One wonders how to remedy that shortfalll in their technical education because once you tell them that it can’t be done, they refuse to try to learn why it is so.

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Ron Graf

0
0

Steven, so you are saying if you as a citizen want to get to the truth you have to do your own science with your own savings and get it through the likes of Frau McNutt. And, if it does not happen tough, “cry me a river.”

And I am told you used to be a skeptic. What changed you?

Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by omanuel

0
0

Thanks, Professor Curry, for your tireless efforts to address problems with global climate models. You have the patience of Job!


Comment on Intermittent grid storage by Bernd Felsche

0
0

How’s that scheme of storing energy going in Norway?

How will they scale to accept around 80GW peak unwanted renewables from just Germany? (Reached earlier this year.) Will they have enough storage capacity to fill in the lulls in renewables; which can go on for 9 to 14 days when there is insignificant wind and short days with cloud cover make PV a joke? The storage capacity would be in the vicinity of 17million MWh.

Not that there is currently, nor is there likely to be, sufficient “renewable” generating capacity to fill such storage before those lulls. The “overbuild” capacity requirement is more than 6 to take advantage of what little wind/solar is available between total lulls. i.e. you have to build at least 6 times as much nameplate capacity.

The connections to Norway and the storage pumps would have to handle peaks in excess of 300 GW. Renewables are then no longer cheap; certainly far from affordable for any industry that wishes to be competitive against those not strangled by renewables and unafraid of nuclear power.

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by David Springer

0
0

It must be very frustrating Mosher to have won all the science debates, unilateral declarations of victory notwithstanding, yet nothing concrete is happening on the policy side despite all the wins.

I feel your pain. It feels good. LOL

Repeat after me: CO2 is plant food. It won’t hurt me.

Comment on Intermittent grid storage by Bernd Felsche

0
0

Health and safety issue:

There’s no sign to indicate that one should bend knees when lifting. ;-)

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Danny Thomas

0
0

Joseph,
Great question.
A) Does it matter if it’s anecdotal?
B) Is there a list provided?

Still missing the point? Why is anecdotal which supports agw acceptable to you yet you argued that anecdotal provided by a skeptic was not?

Joseph, if you’ve not noticed, I’ve made no argument at all about content of either argument.

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by David Springer

0
0

Steven Mosher | July 6, 2015 at 5:43 pm |

“The atmosphere is not a cloud chamber. In short, the effect is NOT seen in the field. period.”

Neither is CO2 warming seen in the field. Over the past 18 years the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 has accelerated and there is no significant warming to show for it.

Field data is a double edged sword that cuts both ways and you sir have taken a page from The Black Knight: “Pause? What are you talking about?” “There’s been no warming man!” “Oh that. ‘Tis merely a flesh wound.”:

ROFLMAO

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Mike Flynn

0
0

Climate change is not the only problem without any specifics needed.

Apparently the U.S. Government doesn’t need an actual reason to keep the populace in a state of fear about their safety on July 4 –

“Authorities told NBC News that they are unaware of any specific or credible threat inside the country. But the dangers are more complex and unpredictable than ever.”

More danger than ever, just trust me!

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by stevenreincarnated

0
0

Acid oceans, climate Armageddon, nothing left in the oceans but microbes, I just wasted an hour listening to some far out on the fringe opinions by McNutt


Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by hockeyschtick

0
0

From the PhD thesis,

“Now, GHGs shall be introduced. Sure, they have a “shielding” effect over the tropics by causing long-wave downwelling radiation to heat the surface. The same happens, to some smaller extent though, in the polar regions. In addition to that, GHGs give the atmosphere the ability to emit energy directly into space, without the need to transport it through the surface first.”

Steven Mosher on the last thread: “Downwelling IR is not the cause of global warming. IT IS THE EFFECT. Downwelling IR doesn’t warm the planet.

Which is it?

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by David Springer

0
0

Answer the question, Mosher. With 342W/m2 of back radiation raining down from the sky you should be able cook hotdogs on a cloudy night with it. Don’t look now the but bozo is you. Wake me up when you get invited to speak before congress. What a tool.

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by David Springer

0
0

davideisenstadt | July 6, 2015 at 10:00 pm |
hey mosh:
Ive read your posts where you emphasize actually publishing one’s work in peer reviewed publications…you have written extensively and repeatedly, with due cause, about the importance of doing the hard work in the field and the lab…so i finally google scholar searched you….
I could find no articles whatsoever related to climate science….did I search the wrong mosher?

————————————————————————-

Nope. All hat no cattle.

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Steve Pruett

0
0

The problem is that there are several genuinely important and even transformational papers published in Science. As a biomedical researcher for more than 30 years, I can tell you that almost all scientists in that field view publishing in Science as a major career accomplishment. So it is particularly disappointing to learn that the Editor-in-Chief would boldly proclaim a patently anti-scientific view (the debate is over). This didn’t even occur when HIV as the cause of AIDS was questioned by Peter Deusberg, a distinguished virologist and member of the National Academy of Science. His opinions were criticized soundly, but his opinions were not suppressed. The feeling was, as I recall it at the time, that the evidence was so strong for HIV as the cause of AIDS that it would prevail and that there was really no need to attack Deusberg or the few who agreed with him. We expected the data would end the debate, which is exactly what happened. One of my reasons for becoming a skeptic on CAGW was the bizarre, antiscientific response of many climate scientists when questioned in any way about the consensus narrative. If they are so sure they are right, why don’t they act like normal scientists and discuss the science and reiterate the evidence and refute the many observations that do not support their narrative? Instead, they appeal to authority and declare the debate closed and personally attack those who disagree with them. That is not science. For one of the most prestigious science journals to be in the hands of such a person does not bode well for the future of science.

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by David Springer

0
0

Doesn’t look to me like the EPA is getting a raise to fund enforcement of GHG regulations. Maybe people will volunteer to work at the EPA without pay?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images