One has to use steroid induced motivated reasoning in order to ignore geothermal activity and its impact on warming waters from the West Antarctic Rift System. There is too much evidence to ignore a common sense deduction that tectonic transverse faults are at play in the region.
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by cerescokid
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Richard Arrett
See – adaptation is a good idea.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Richard Arrett
Jim D:
Yes – sea level rise has been much faster in the past than it is in the present. And that was while CO2 was still at 280 ppm or so.
The average rate over the last 20000 years is 6 mm/year. So our period is 1/2 of the average historic rate.
So you cannot rule out that the increase in sea level rise is caused naturally somehow or even that a substantial % (say 1/2 for example) is caused naturally and not by humans.
It could be 100% human caused but it is still possible it is naturally occurring.
The science is not settled.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Richard Arrett
JCH:
Increasing Antarctica sea ice extent is scoring points for the skeptics.
Here is why.
Increasing Antarctica sea ice flies in the face of the theory.
It is not as if increasing Antarctica sea ice was predicted.
New observations lead to new theory – which is what Hansen has done.
He may be right or not – but good for him for coming up with a new theory in the face of new observations which are inconsistent with the existing theory. That is actual science.
But this does shows the science is not settled.
This shows that we do not understand climate change.
This helps show why the models are currently garbage and why they are so far off from reality.
This shows that we have no idea how high sea level will be in 2100.
This shows that we have no idea how much of the warming from 1850 is natural or human caused.
Which in turn means we can make no meaningful policy decisions.
We simply do not know enough to spend trillions on possibly useless actions.
Sometimes the best decision is to do nothing.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by aaron
In other words, the more detatched someone is from actual climate and the more propaganda they’re exposed to, the more risk they believe there is.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by aaron
VP, +
I had a similar thought. Nice follow through.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by David Springer
Shotgun wedding was a joke, Monfort. Lighten up.
I don’t anticipate nor have any desire to be within shouting distance of you or your wife, Vaughn. Good thing too if, as you say, I can expect to assaulted.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by aaron
Regarding the multi-meter.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by JCH
Those praying at the alter of “it ain’t happenin'” are the sycophants.
Nice try Richard. Expanding sea ice in the Antarctic is a sign continental melting is getting worse fast. Around here there were all sorts of comments about global koolin’ being upon us. How else could ice expand? Well, they were wrong.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by David Springer
No, no, no… shotgun wedding not shogun wedding.
But now that you mention it is there an appreciable difference?
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by aaron
1 million a year for 35 years is well above your 27% of 100 million target.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Joel Williams
I believe this is what PA is trying to get across:
3 mm/y for 85 years = 255 mm
his remaining 700 mm must be achieved in 85y by the acceleration component: a/852; therefore a = 0.097mm/y2
if the acceleration is delayed for 35y, then the 700 mm must be achieved in 50y: a/502; therefore a = 0.28mm/y2
↧
Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer
Muenchen (been there, done that) is hoighty-toighty for city known as Munich to everyone else.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Vaughan Pratt
If you have better experiments why are you keeping them a secret?
↧
Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by ristvan
Springer, PE is a Caltech EE who spent his whole life figuring out this stuff for one of the world’s largest electric utilities. Me, apparently (but not only) a stalker object for you. You can look me up on Linked In to find more. But not any important parts you would need to know to keep stalking.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Vaughan Pratt
@timg56: <i>You do know David Archer was claiming 10 meter slr well before this paper by Hansen, right?</I>
When? (The rise, not the claim.)
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by JCH
I can’t find it. Archer is mostly an “after 2100″ sort of guy.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by PA
Jim D | July 28, 2015 at 10:54 pm |
PA, that is not the global forcing. It was only a few W/m2 due to the ice albedo.
1. Your claim (or someone’s claim) about southern insolation seems to be incorrect.
2. Early holocene forcing change. This is something computable so we. can get a rough figure of merit. Current insolation at 65°N is about 430 W/m2. There was 26 million km2 more NH ice.
We will assume the cover difference is only 2/3 of the year. Ice has a better than 0;9 albedo. The albedo of ground is around 0.2. Surface area of the northern hemisphere is 255 million km2, since the energy is largely needed in the northern hemisphere. 430*2/3*.7*26/255 = 20.46 W/m2 or about 5.6°C. And that isn’t the peak of the interglacial, that is just the point in the cycle when we started emerging from the ice age.(more melting than freezing).
So… it seems that a minimum of 20 W/m2 additional energy is needed to leave an ice age. The 1.16 W/m2 forcing of a 200 to 280 PPM CO2 increase won’t do it.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Joel Williams
VP- thanks for replying
I see JimD claims all the glaciers will do 100x your SLR. Do wonder what all those “ice cubes” will do to sea temps. Lot of heat needed to convert ice to water! Global temps have decreased slower than they rise every 100,000 years according to the Vostok Ice Cores.
I wonder why the current “heat wave” did not behave like the previous 3 and peak big time in the first 6000 years after temps first reached our current ones. Of course, our “heat wave” is right in there with two of the 3 in the next 5000. Why would anyone expect our “heat wave” to peak at the end?
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by angech2014
“If it’s completely muted, then that shows it caused warming.”
No, if something is completely muted it did not happen in the first place.
No argument about CO2 increase potentially and actually causing an atmosphere to become warmer.
Lots of argument about whether the increase damps [mutes] itself by increasing albedo.
If it does then the earth is self regulating in this regard with variation in climate more dependent on other factors.
” If not, then the feedback, without CO2-induced warming, would have caused cooling. ”
This could be rephrased perhaps in a way that makes sense, I do not think you mean what you said you mean.
↧
