So Mike Flynn,
According to you, over a 24 hour period, the net effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is a wash…no net cooling or net warming. Take all the CO2 out of atmosphere and nothing would happen. Is that your position?
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by R. Gates
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by sunshinehours1
“To this physical scientist, the troposphere is basically a heat engine which dissipates thermal energy input at its warmer interface to the tune of 240W/m^2.”
Every minute of every day is 240W/m^2?
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by roncram
It seems to me the paper has completely neglected the impact of Climategate on climate scientists. For example, did the paper cover the fact Eduardo Zorita publicly stated that Phil Jones, Michael Mann and Stephan what’s-his-name should never be allowed to participate in IPCC assessment reports in the future?
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by roncram
It seems the paper also neglected the strong criticisms by McIntyre of the “investigations” into Climategate. To any objective observer, a paper such as this would have to discuss the investigations and how they were received by scientists and the public.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by roncram
David,
Love this line! – “Republicans become engineers, where reality really matters.”
↧
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by sunshinehours1
Do we let bookmakers score the boxing match too? And adjust the score:
Lets see in round 1934 Boxer A scored a 5 but we need Boxer A to lose so lets adjust round 1934 downwards multiple times depending on how Boxer B is doing …
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by sunshinehours1
Outside? Feb and March of this year are not even warmer than 1878.
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hadcrut3gl_mar.png
https://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/hadcrut3gl_feb.png
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by MattStat/MatthewRMarler
Steven Mosher: Sensitivity has nothing to do with C02.
The “sensitivity” that matters in the policy debate is the sensitivity to change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The TCS that was estimated by Isaac Held was a sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 over a period of 70 years, which would be the result of a continued 1% per year increase over that time.
One assumption that is dubious is that a change in CO2 can be related to a change in forcing (in Watts/m^2) throughout all future climate change. Another is that the sensitivity defined as you defined it will be constant throughout future climate change. Dr. Curry put it this way: Yes, that equation is used like some sort of iron law. What the equation actually means in terms of expectations for future climate change from greenhouse forcing is not what its proponents think it means, wherein lies the problem.
Neither “sensitivity” (wrt CO2 or radiative “forcing”) can be estimated on present data without the assumption that it is constant throughout climate change, and there is no good reason to assume that either is constant.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by MattStat/MatthewRMarler
David L. Hagen: <i> On evidence for solar vs CO2 as driving climate</i>
If CO2 concentration continues to increase and solar activity continues to decline, the actual temperature/climate evolution ought to clarify that considerably <i> in the next few decades </i> (One of my favorite phrases.)
↧
↧
Comment on The Bias of Science by Girma
I have not projected my empirical model until 2200. You cannot do that. My model applies only for the 20th century. If you assume the climate pattern does not change in 150 years, we would still have been in the little ice age.
You are criticizing a claim I have not made.
My model is an excellent description of the climate pattern of the 20th century. I have not seen a better model so far.
↧
Comment on The Bias of Science by WebHubTelescope
“Web, why don’t you plot my model until 2100 so that we are not comparing apples and organs with the IPCC?”
I guess that would be showing a bias. You were the one that developed the model after all, and being unbiased myself, I just plot what you present for a model.
“It is also important to note the current climate pattern may not be applicable in 150 years times; otherwise, we would still be in the Little Ice Age.”
I guess your “secular” model goes into a hiatus. Girma decides when the hiatus occurs, thus demonstrating absolutely no bias. Yea, for sure.
↧
Comment on The Bias of Science by WebHubTelescope
<blockquote>"I have not projected my empirical model until 2200. You cannot do that. My model applies only for the 20th century. " </blockquote>
A great example of bias, that statement. Girma decides when his model is applicable, based on the <i>numbering of centuries</i>. Wow, that is some neat science!
↧
Comment on The Bias of Science by Girma
If you assume the climate pattern does not change in 150 years, we would still have been in the little ice age.
↧
↧
Comment on The Bias of Science by Girma
Web
The problem with empirical models is you can not use them for projection far from their range. Web, it is only a description of the climate pattern of the 20th century. May be It could be valid for the next 20 to 30 years, but no way for 200 years.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate by WebHubTelescope
Nice metaphor.
“There isn’t just one bullet in the revolver, there are five with just one empty slot.”
And the one empty slot is fossil fuel depletion. The consensus moral of the Russian roulette story is that you don’t play Russian roulette. It is a 100% probability with no uncertainty that a sustainable energy route is the only feasible path to follow.
↧
Comment on The Bias of Science by Girma
I guess your “secular” model goes into a hiatus.
Don’t you think it can reverse?
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate by thisisnotgoodtogo
thread terns for the better
chicken littles on the run
↧
↧
Comment on The Bias of Science by WebHubTelescope
“Web, it is only a description of the climate pattern of the 20th century. “
Oh I see. Your model is just a description of everything that happened in the past. That is the best skeptical climate model I have seen yet, all based on historical data and curve fitting heuristics. The input is the historical data and the output is the same historical data with a line drawn through it, stopping before it extrapolates into the future.. Breathtaking in its simplicity, and impossible to second guess!
↧
Comment on The Bias of Science by Girma
<i>You were the one that developed the model after all</i>
I modelled it to describe the climate pattern of the 20th century, you applied it for the climate of the next 200 years, for an invalid purpose. It is invalid because extrapolation does usually work for empirical models.
↧
Comment on The Bias of Science by WebHubTelescope
“It is invalid because extrapolation does usually work for empirical models.”
You said it, extrapolation works for many an empirical model. I have an empirical model for predicting sunrise and sunset and it works very well for predictions. I am setting my alarm clock to it for tomorrow morning, as it is fishing opener and I want to make sure I wake up before sunrise. I sure hope my empirical model works!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
