Damn Vaughn, now I have to see if I can access his book on Amazon and find the time frame.
A pain doing it from my phone while on vacation at the beach.
From memory I want to say he was saying 100 – 150 years out, but it could have been longer.
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by timg56
↧
↧
Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by ristvan
JT, my little energy storage materials company lived through something similar, on a much smaller scale. Ever tried to get into ONR NSWCCD? Trust me, you will fly right over Carderrock when usually going into Reagan Airport in DC from the north… And armed guards plus antitank traps will stop you if you happen to stumble upon the sole entrance to that ‘secret’ Navy research facility without prior permission. Been there, done that.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by timg56
Steve,
1, I don’t personally know any Oscar winners.
2, being cryptic rarely gets the point across.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by timg56
If Hansen is right, then we might as well party like it’s 2099.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by timg56
Feedback JCH.
Look it up.
The concept, not the known climate feedbacks, cause we don’t really know them. Maybe why models “parameterize” some of them by saying 3x.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Jim D
PA, that is not global forcing. It is summer insolation at 65 N. There is a major difference. The only thing they have in common is the same units.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Steven Mosher
“No one lWith any sense istens to gore but Watson and others had important positions and didn’t make these numerous qualifications that you do. You wouldn’t want to dilute a scary scenario with uncertainty would you?”
Then why has every IPCC document detailed the very uncertainties you prattle on about?
AGain.. Dont listen to people. read the science.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by JCH
The PDO is called a cycle because it gets warm, and then the warm goes away. A sweet little story.
And then along came the bruiser… ACO2.
Which did not turn off for 15-18 years… a fantasy.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by JCH
I put the link in so people could, if they so desired, read the whole thing.
Why didn’t I paste the whole thing here. Because that’s rude. I highlighted what would highlight on the first try, and then I pasted it here, and made a small section into a link.
JFC.
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Jim D
Swedan’s 4 replies to replies are dragonslayer stuff. The comments opposed to him seem to be people not having seen that view before, and they are just trying to put him right with physical reasoning. Little do they know how ingrained this dragonslayer stuff is. I wouldn’t bother.
↧
Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by ristvan
Springer, you obviously are not fluent in German.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Vaughan Pratt
Jim D, not only do you have my full attention, you have me sitting bolt upright when I’d rather be going to bed
The IPCC and various other sources claim the glaciers can contribute around 43 or 44 cm of sea level rise. Try typing
volume of Earth’s ice
to google and see if you don’t get 170,000 cubic km for glacier volume. That’s 1.7/13500 = 0.013% of the planet’s water.
The USGS, which has an office just down the road from me, claims 70 m. With the average ocean depth being around 3700 m, that’s around 2%!
This is bind-moggling.
All I can think is that either somebody has their decimal point off by a couple of places, or glaciologists can’t agree on the definition of “glacier”, or the USGS can no longer afford to hire glaciologists.
I’m going to tune in to KWTF tomorrow morning after a good night’s sleep to see if they have any recent news on this extraordinary discrepancy. Let me know if you come up with any reconciliation in the meantime.
The world’s gone mad.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by climatereason
Mosh said
‘Then why has every IPCC document detailed the very uncertainties you prattle on about? AGain.. Dont listen to people. read the science.’
You miss the point. Far more people will read a news report, listen to the sound bites of someone like Watson or see a sensationalised TV programme than will ever read the IPCC documents. People like Watson and Panchauri are the megaphone and what they say is what people will hear.
“Science is settled. Extreme weather events. Ice sheet collapse Unprecedented warming. Cities to be submerged by rising waters etc etc.”
This is what comes over. Whether it SHOULD be the message people hear is quite another thing but when politicians don’t even read the summary for policy makers (let alone the full document) how can you expect the ordinary people to realise there are many nuances and uncertainties..
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by climatereason
Chris
Gore was actually prominently mentioned in the article I linked to regarding Watson. I can’t uninvent him or erase the mention.
To me he is utterly irrelevant. However, perhaps he still has more power behind the scenes than I think (and than Mosher wants) See my link above that his company has been behind numerous PR events promoting his ideas on global warming and carbon taxes and MAY be behind the promotion for Hansen’s latest paper via WPP.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by PA
Vaughan Pratt | July 28, 2015 at 11:05 pm |
@Jim D: Vaughan Pratt, the accepted values are that if all the glaciers melted it is worth 70 meters of sea-level
Accepted by you and whose alarmy?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
Well, there is 30,000,000 km3 of ice on the planet and 90% is said to be in Antarctica. The uncertainty in the Antarctic ice volume (4500000 km3)
is greater than all other ice volumes combined. The Antarctic ice volume is quoted as 25 million to 30 million km3 depending on the source.
30e6 km3/230 mm/km3 / 1000 mm/m= 130 m
10% of that is 13 m. That includes Greenland and every other chunk of ice on the planet outside of Antarctica. The Himalayan glaciers for reference are in the 2955 to 4737 km3 range.
VP, I don’t know where the 70 m number is coming from either.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by mosomoso
It’s quite a stunt.
You say that there have been climate extremes and tragedies in recent years (as in all years), then you say that they cannot individually be attributed to human activity (burden of proof off), then you say that there is a prediction that such events, with greater frequency and magnitude, will be due to human activity (the prediction exists, and you are only claiming the existence of a prediction).
You take three utterly disconnected propositions, merge them into a case as if one proposition flowed from the other.
Good try, warmies. Actually, it’s not even a good try. Without the green goo on their brains even HuffPo and Guardian readers could see through it.
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by beththeserf
Yes, climatereason and
mosomoso,
How often must a serf say it,
nuthin’ s evah categorically
unequivocally SETTLED.
Flawed humans on shiftin’,
continents in an evolvin’
universe, castin’ nets ter
try ter catch reality, we
can only, provisionally
surmise that it’s reality.
Retreat ter yer island
of safety ‘n certainty
and it’s curtains –
likely yer’ll turn inter
pillars of salt.
https://edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society
↧
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by climatereason
Vaughan
I suspect that JIm D got that figure from here.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map
tonyb
↧
Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Canman
<blockquote>Moreover, the natural gas that fuels most cogeneration is only about half as carbon-intensive as the coal-fired power-only generation it often displaces.[3]</blockquote>
That statement looks suspicous to me. Gas requires pipeline infrastructure. I suspect it is mostly diesel. That note is not a source, but just blather:
<blockquote>[3] However, this comparison ignores the unknown degree of methane leakage from both the gas and the coal systems, the export of displaced coal that is then burned abroad, and cogeneration’s potential displacement of some carbon-free generation.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Hansen’s backfire by jim2
Jim D goes off to fantasy land …
@Jim D | July 26, 2015 at 6:24 pm |
The difference is, if Wadhams was on the skeptic side he would have a lead post on WUWT by now and everyone there would be nodding along. As it is, no one on his own side of the debate has bought into his idea.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
