The article in the Ecologist combines those two great modern forms of self-loathing: climate alarmism and Israel-bashing.
Though maybe it’s only the words that are modern.
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by mosomoso
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by beththeserf
Politics,
alack,
more
machiavellian
than
socratic.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes
Tony,
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios.dat" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is a data file at realclimate that is attributed to Hansen et al 1989. The numbers are slightly different, but still supporting my argument. In fact Scen B is there 398ppm CO2 in 2015, which is very close. I think this is the file I originally saw, so the provenance of the CA version is a little less clear.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes
Tony, ps although that file says it relates to Hansen 1989, the filename is H88_scenarios.dat.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ...and Then There's Physics
Nick,
If memory serves me right, Hansen’s model also had an ECS of 4.2C which is near the upper end of the probable range.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David Wojick
Semantic pollution from EPA: “CO2 emissions” became “carbon pollution.”
http://www.cato.org/blog/you-ought-have-look-clean-power-plan-comes-under-fire
The graph graphically portrays EPA’s semantic switch from “emissions” to “pollution.” Pure hype. The dip at the end is just because there is only 7+ months of data. I would stop at 2014 then update annually.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
Nick
I accept your good faith understanding of the situation, which is confirmed by your careful and circumspect phrasing ‘attributed to’ and ‘believed’ and your uncertainty of the CA data provenance. These are hardly ringing endorsements that the data mostly unavailable to view in Hansen’s full paywalled 1988 paper is the same as that posted by Real Climate and CA.
I think it would be best if we can un-equivocably confirm the data is one and the same and to do that I will need to read the full version of the pay walled article.
thanks for your help
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David Wojick
Interesting legal analysis by Marlo Lewis:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/08/19/clean-energy-incentive-program-new-unlawful-element-in-epas-power-plant-rule/.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by andywest2012
Steve McIntyre | August 29, 2015 at 2:21 pm
Thanks for the pointer Steve; I read the Conclusions and Summary of Douglass et al. I guess with Christy and Singer onboard this would be regarded as a skeptic work. Also the Discussion and Conclusion of your M&M paper. Afaics these make no speculation about the future (other than a note in Douglass et al cautioning on the use of projections from unskilled models). Is this right? The concept of a likely return of warming has to be explicit to qualify as a pause meme.
The all-too-clear resistance to your submission reveals the emotional defense that appears to be such a powerful and constant feature of the climate Consensus. Such a blunt challenge: ‘models and data disagree’, threatens the very foundations of the climate Consensus, and I think has helped usher in the concept of ‘a pause’, which is emotionally much less challenging.
Whatever the impact of ACO2 and whether the pause does or doesn’t turn out to real (in the sense of resumed MM GW), it seems that emotive drives are dominating the output of the Consensus, not the science.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ...and Then There's Physics
Tony,
I don't think it's paywalled. It's <a href="http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal_1.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I've also checked and in Section 2 it does indeed say that the Equilibrium Sensitivity for this model is 4.2C.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by AK
And that’s probably how many more respondents felt, that they weren’t comfortable with the categories as specified. So they would have to make a choice between category that came somewhat close to their personal estimate, or other, dunno, or unknown. […] And that is why we thought it better to leave those latter three categories out, because its number is in all likelihood much higher than the numebr of respondents who are truly agnostic on the question of human GHG dominated warming.
Demonstrating that your survey was very poorly designed for actually determining how many respondents actually support what positions.
If it had been properly designed, you wouldn’t have to be “guessing” about who thought what, you’d have answers to tell you.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by climatereason
ATTP
Thanks very much for helping but I can not scroll all the way down before there are gaps and then the pdf seizes up preventing further scrolling. In the abstract it asks for 6$ in order to rent it so I had assumed this was deliberate
If you have the time can you see if you can scroll ALL the way through to the end on a non university computer as you will no doubt have subscriptions in place which might enable you to see more than I can!
Once again, thanks for your help
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
catweazle, good, so when you say you can’t see long-term downs, are you not looking carefully enough, or what?
↧
↧
Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by michael hart (@michael97087462)
Judith, you are too polite to these people.
↧
Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by catweazle666
Well, you never know, children may be present!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by catweazle666
“catweazle, good, so when you say you can’t see long-term downs, are you not looking carefully enough, or what?”
You really, really don’t get it do you?
I would do better explaining the finer points of quantum magnetohydrodynamics to my cat than trying to inform you as to the utter ridiculousness of “ensembles” of “spaghetti graphs” as a representation of real-world events.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by PA
Trump has a positive take charge message.
Opponents that are handwringers, preaching the doctrine of decline, the need for more government at the expense of freedom, or are apologetic about America are going to look bad by comparison.
↧
↧
Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by hidethedecline (@hidethedecline)
“There is a possibility that some of the observed trend arises from internal tropical cyclone variability that has aliased into the 35-year period used here. However, we consider that a substantial contamination from internal variability is highly unlikely.”
“contamination”?
What an appalling word choice.
What they mean is:
“The trend we have identified may be entirely natural. But we prefer not to contemplate that.”
Seems to me this hurricane science is no different to temperature science – the consensus scientists will only start to grapple with attribution after they’ve been dragged kicking and screaming to do so by the skeptic community.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by PA
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/summer-snow-to-greet-obama-on-alaska-climate-trip/
Spencer makes a good point about temperature.
When retreating glaciers uncover MWP tree stumps it is pretty clear whether the MWP or today is warmer.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by bobdroege
Well, I believe in wave particle duality being necessary to explain everything.
Read your chart, at the bottom it says “over Sahara”
Any idea if anywhere in the Sahara is at 217 K?
Because that is an absorption line at 15 microns, it doesn’t mean that there is a blackbody at that temperature.
That is an extreme claim and you will have to provide evidence that there is a 217 K blackbody, before I decide to tell you whether or not that blackbody can heat a blackbody at 255 K.
But I can tell you that an atmosphere composed of some amount of CO2 will irradiate in the infrared depending only on the absolute temperature of the CO2 and the concentration. Some of that will be directed to the surface and since it can not penetrate rock, it will warm the surface, no matter what the temperature of the surface. Some of it will even leave earth and hit the sun, and even warm that, to a totally imperceptible degree.
You see, it doesn’t matter what you think the second law says, a photon, according to the standard model, can only carry three pieces of information, one being its energy, and two for the direction it is traveling, which leaves no room to store the temperature of the body that emitted it, and no room for the temperature of the body that absorbs it.
To sum it up, there are no physical laws prohibiting a cold object from warming a warmer object.
Sorry to crush your hopes.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
