left out a critical word in last comment:
(in fact, observations from Hottel et al proves CO2 behaves the opposite of a true blackbody in that emissivity decreases with <b>increased</b> temperature, opposite of a true blackbody),
Comment on New research on atmospheric radiative transfer by hockeyschtick
↧
↧
Comment on Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating by PA
Well, your CO2 (0.2 W/m2 for 22 PPM) has caused about 1.05 W/m2 of forcing. It might do another 1 W if you are lucky.
The last ice age had a 5-8 meter higher sea level and the Arctic was 9°C warm (33.3 W/m2 more forcing).
The Pliocene was a different era. There wasn’t an Arctic ice cap and the albedo was higher. The cooling was due to geography.
The meme that decreasing CO2 caused the cooling is sort of silly. A few watts less CO2 forcing would have helped but it was mostly the build up of the ice sheets that dried out the environment and reduced albedo.
The declining CO2 level was mostly an innocent bystander.
↧
Comment on Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and law professors disagree by PA
aaron | July 9, 2015 at 11:00 pm |
Partial, working hypothesis.
CO2 in ice-bubbles begins to dissolve with time and pressure.
Might be true. But the land plants growth increased 55% since 1900 and the sea absorption is steadily increasing. In fact the increased growth just about balances the amount of rainforest destroyed.
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Rafe’s Roundup 10 July | Catallaxy Files
[…] How to argue with skeptics. Alarmist advocacy from the editor of Science. Comment by Judith Curry. British government moving on subsidies for alternative […]
↧
Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Rafe’s Roundup 10 July - Freedom's Floodgates
[…] How to argue with skeptics. Alarmist advocacy from the editor of Science. Comment by Judith Curry. British government moving on subsidies for alternative […]
↧
↧
Comment on Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating by moshannon
This may be a naïve question. I am not a scientist.
Why don’t we simply use satellites to measure the total amount of electromagnetic energy entering and leaving the earth’s atmosphere? The difference between the two would be the net gain (or loss) of energy.
I realize that some of that energy is converted to chemical bonds (e.g. hydrocarbons) where it can be stored indefinitely. But wouldn’t that be an exceedingly small fraction of the total daily energy exchange?
If the earth is emitting as much radiation as it is receiving, wouldn’t that mean that the temperature is stable? It just seems like that would be a lot simpler than attempting to measure surface temperatures and temperatures at various ocean depths.
Suppose we wanted to know whether Jupiter was heating up or cooling down. Couldn’t we calculate the incident radiation and measure the emitted radiation, and then use the difference as a measure of energy gain or loss? Would we actually need to put thousands of sensors on Jupiter’s surface, and would that really be more accurate?
↧
Comment on Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating by Steven Mosher
"“Why did Nieves et al. excluded data for 2013 and 2014? They could just as easily have written the paper for the 12 years before and after 2003, instead of using 10 years. Are the results dependent on the start and end years? "
<a href="https://secure.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=LU_xuWh7YnfvQpMWwArwJg&partner=southpark&sourceUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsouthpark.cc.com%2Fclips%2F255332%2Fbrave-enough-to-ask-questions&embed_age_gate_intro=true" rel="nofollow">https://secure.hulu.com/embed.html?eid=LU_xuWh7YnfvQpMWwArwJg&partner=southpark&sourceUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsouthpark.cc.com%2Fclips%2F255332%2Fbrave-enough-to-ask-questions&embed_age_gate_intro=true</a>
↧
Comment on Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating by beththeserf
I will try ter do better, Jim and, Peter, use mullti-sylible
descriptive words like ‘travesty’ and ‘transmogrification’
Thx RiH, a little whine will be most acceptable. Hey there,
Faustino, washed in last week’s unpredicted downpour!
↧
Comment on Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating by Mike Flynn
David Springer,
So the “imbalance gradually goes away”. I suppose this is Warmist for “cools”.
Is that why the Earth cooled in the past, in spite of much higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere? As you say, the Earth hasn’t been “accumulating” heat. That’s why it cooled. Don’t you agree?
If the Earth warmed as a result of CO2 in the atmosphere, it should be a lot hotter than it is now, or did the “imbalance gradually go away”, without anyone noticing?
Can I take it you agree that the Earth has cooled? If so, what is it that I don’t understand?
I’m not sure how less CO2 in the atmosphere now, results in heating, whereas more CO2 in the past, resulted in cooling. You might care to explain this seemingly wondrous occurrence.
In any case, maybe you have overlooked the “hiatus”, “pause”, or “failure of temperature to rise in spite of CO2 levels rising”, however expressed. Sorry if this is an inconvenient truth. Hiding additional “heat” in the ocean won’t work. In a reasonably well mixed ocean, warmer water is less dense water. Less dense water is more buoyant water, and will ascend through colder, denser water. Trying to force less dense water to remain quietly hidden under more dense water, is beyond the ability of even the most devout Warmist.
Maybe the density “imbalance gradually goes away” and the heat energy which caused it is gradually destroyed – never to be seen again. Unfortunately, you have to ignore the First Law of Thermodynamics to achieve this.
No problem for a decdicated Warmist, I would guess.
Thanks for your interest.
↧
↧
Comment on Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Steven,
If you do not have an answer to Bob’s question, that is OK. There is no need to hide it with humor.
↧
Comment on Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating by climatereason
The answer is that the paper was written in December 2014 so data for that year was not available
tonyb
↧
Comment on Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating by edimbukvarevic
Jim, you’re missing the decline in global temperature trends. The 30-year trailing trends have been decreasing since the peak in ~2005. All temperature indices show the decline and the maximum was under 0.2 K/decade (surface data ~0.19 K/decade, satellite ~0.16 K/decade). Even surface trends are down to ~0.16 K/decade now.
↧
Comment on Which climate change papers ‘matter’? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
mosher, “captian
“1. A belief, understanding, or claim that AGW is
a) certain
b) Likely. (how likely)
2. The AGW believed in ( say 2C of warming ) will lead to a
catastrophe.
3. A call for immediate action.”
3 based on Pascal’s Wager.
Hey what better source than hufpo?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tirman/climate-change_b_1685982.html
or the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/03/climate-change-pascal-wager
That is 17th century stuff now all we need are a few scientific witches to burn.
If you don’t like those sources try googling it :)
↧
↧
Comment on Which climate change papers ‘matter’? by jim2
Well, dang, looks like we might be headed for another cold alarmist scare. Will it ever end???!!!
From the article:
…
Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will ‘go to sleep’ in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet
New study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles
Says that between 2030 and 2040 solar cycles will cancel each other out
Could lead to ‘Maunder minimum’ effect that saw River Thames freeze over
By MARK PRIGG FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 12:40 EST, 10 July 2015 | UPDATED: 15:42 EST, 10 July …
The Earth could be headed for a ‘mini ice age’ researchers have warned.
A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles – and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.
This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the ‘Maunder minimum’ – which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London’s River Thames to freeze over.
…
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by David L. Hagen
Mann allegedly said: "a real scientific response would also give serious weight to the dark side of the curve."
Rising CO2 is providing benefits of <a href="http://russgeorge.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Global_greening_map1.png" rel="nofollow">global greening </a>and increasing agricultural production.
Steve McIntyre <a href="https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/klosa_rothe_2015_annotated.png" rel="nofollow">shows strong cooling and growth of glaciers over the last 4000 years down to The Little Ice Age</a>. What is to prevent that cooling from the Holocene optimum continuing into the next glaciation?
Isn't that the real "dark side of the curve"?
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by beththeserf
Oh les pauvres! Catasstrophic Warming! Say, what does
this panic response to warming within the boundaries of
historic temperature variation say about the suffering
scientists? Looks like a fear and guilt religious response
to me. Scientists – heal – thyselves.
↧
Comment on Intermittent grid storage by sgsterrett
Huh. One of the major players in developing utility-scale energy storage is not mentioned here: Aquion. And Aquion uses nontoxic, fully recyclable materials in stackable (hence scaleable) modules, unlike most other batteries, so they are a totally clean way to store energy. They are mentioned in many articles; here is the website: http://www.aquionenergy.com
↧
↧
Comment on Intermittent grid storage by sgsterrett
p.s.: Aquion just won a major award: the Innovation Award for the Energy Storage Industry, for their nontoxic utility-scale battery design, so they really should have been mentioned in this article; why leave out something recognized for its importance and innovative design? http://www.ees-europe.com/en/for-press/news/press-releases/press-release.html?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=1312&cHash=3de9e173e212123d7a45847f6a59afba
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
How odd that neither the Esquire or Guardian articles benchmarks their scientists’ terrifying views vs those in the IPCC’s reports. Like most activists’ writing these days, neither even mentions the IPCC — once the “gold-standard” of climate science, now “too conservative” to even mention.
That would have been useful for readers. For example, Box’s forecast (or vision) seems contrary to the methane discussion in AR5. This puts his distress in a different light.
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out by George Klein
Gee Willikers!. Have some climate scientists been taking in by psycho- babble? Or is this just media headlining grabbing by a small number of climate scientists to emphasize their scenarios for the future and facing the fact they might just be only partly right, or not at all? Or do they lack the confidence in their own work, or are having second thoughts about the papers they published, or couldn’t handle scrutiny of their work?
I honestly don’t know what to make of what these people quoted in the linked articles and in Dr. Curry’s summary of what they are saying. Two actually left the USA because of reactions to their research?
In my view, perhaps harsh, if one can’t live with the consequences of one’s actions, science, or written work, perhaps one needs to find another field, not another country.
Perhaps its time for everyone to take a deep breath, smell the flowers, and face the fact that the sky isn’t falling and that tomorrow the sun will still rise.
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
