Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by davidsmith651

0
0

Hi Judith. Nice summaries and data!
In my view, 1988 and 1989 data should be included in the Landsea study and it should be analyzed by year, not by pentad. In the Holland study I’m concerned that there’s a conflating relationship between ACCI and measurement technique. In other words, high ACCI likely occurred in periods (1990s, 2000s) when wind estimation techniques were better (and captured peak intensities better), conflating their analysis.
Historical data is generally too poor in quality and duration to reliably detect weaker trends or to separate natural from anthropogenic effects. It will take much more than ten years of additional data to change that. The good news is that the sky has not fallen (ie, we’ve not seen a strong increase in intense TCs).


Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by dynam01

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="https://ididntasktobeblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/hurricanes-and-global-warming-10-years-post-katrina/" rel="nofollow">I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog</a>.

Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by PA

0
0

Well…

The Venona Project proved that McCarthy was essentially correct.

There are some stylist issues with his approach. But in the 50s the Soviets informed their US handlers to stop recruiting from the Commerce department because they had too many spies already. The people who claimed McCarthy was wrong were liars.

Given the number of weapon designs and other information stolen there was an issue and is still an issue with spying.

Global warming is a perfect example of the sort of lunacy the Russians would encourage if they wanted to undermine the US.

Comment on The conceits of consensus by dynam01

0
0
Reblogged this on <a href="https://ididntasktobeblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/the-conceits-of-consensus/" rel="nofollow">I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog</a>.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by curryja

0
0

Hi David, long time since we’ve talked hurricanes!

Comment on The conceits of consensus by Jim D

0
0

HS, you attempted to untangle your logic, but are hopelessly even more entangled. So when you keep saying radiation is not important, it actually is. Presumably your atmosphere is not emitting light, but IR, and somehow doing it without the aid of GHGs. Interesting stuff.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Jim D

0
0

TE, anyway, as I said, I do see a connection between a hot El Nino and what is going on in the Pacific at this time even if you don’t.

Comment on The conceits of consensus by hockeyschtick

0
0

Jim D | September 2, 2015 at 12:23 am |
“Presumably your atmosphere is not emitting light, but IR, and somehow doing it without the aid of GHGs. Interesting stuff.”

Well I suppose it is quite interesting and confusing to you JimD that IR is in fact LIGHT or ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION on the ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM, and that ALL THERMAL RADIATION FROM BLACKBODIES IS WITHIN THE LONGWAVE INFRARED SPECTRUM. Therefore, the only emission/absorption from GHGs of relevance to the GHE is in the LONGWAVE INFRARED SPECTRUM of LIGHT.

Please Google all terms in CAPS above to educate yourself on elementary school physics, I’m done tutoring you.


Comment on The conceits of consensus by Jim D

0
0

HS, your atmosphere is emitting IR and has an ERL just like in the consensus. I understand this well, but you don’t seem to think this idea has anything to do with radiation, which is where you went off the rails.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)

0
0

Looking at their main figure of Landsea, Klotzbach and olland we see that categories 1, 2, and 3 all declined by 10 percent within the last 40 years. The exceptions are categories 4 and five whose frequency doubled over the same period. They try to explain it by pleading poor observations prior to 1989. I simply do not believe them. Categories four and five hurricanes are far easier to observe than the three lower categories are. This fact eliminates observational errors as a cause of the discrepancy involved. Based on the data they show we must assume that the increase of category 4 and 5 is probably real. Unfortunately they chose to cut the observation period short despite the available time line that extends to the early part of the century. Without seeing these data that were left out a firmer judgement of category four and five frequency is difficult to arrive at. As to sorting out natural from human-caused hurricanes, just relax. There are no human-caused hurricanes.

Comment on The conceits of consensus by PA

0
0

Jim D | September 2, 2015 at 12:23 am |
HS, you attempted to untangle your logic, but are hopelessly even more entangled. So when you keep saying radiation is not important, it actually is. Presumably your atmosphere is not emitting light, but IR, and somehow doing it without the aid of GHGs. Interesting stuff.

First – lets refer to a useful version of a blueice2hotsea chart…

Not this one:

This one:

Radiation 58 W/m2
Convection 18 1/2 W/m2
Latent: 86 1/2 W/m2
58+ 18 + 86 + 1 = 163 W/m2

So…

Only about 36% of the energy is lost through radiation. Which means the warmers who think that all energy is lost by radiation are going to be off by almost a factor of 3 – all things being equal. And global warmers are off by a factor of three. AGW is only good for 1.05 W/m2 since 1900.

And it should noted that the 22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 (which gives you the 1.05 W/m2 from CO2 since 1900) is the high end. This is the “Clear Sky Flux” difference. If the sky is not clear or not fluxing the effect is drastically reduced.

According to Wiki:
“On average, about 52% of Earth is cloud-covered at any moment”

I can’t find an estimate for how much of the time things aren’t fluxing.

So… the Anthopowhosit Globular Whateveritis (AGW) could be as little as half a Watt per square meter since 1900.

While I disagree with HS about GHG the effect is potentially so small that real world data probably won’t settle our argument. About the only thing we will agree on is global warmers are wrong.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by franktoo

0
0

Judith: Graphs with year as the independent variable and hurricane intensity as the dependent variable don’t tell us anything useful about GW and hurricanes. Time isn’t increasing the intensity of hurricanes! (Worse, our measurement technology has changed with time.) Rising GMST isn’t increasing the intensity of hurricanes! Rising SSTs aren’t increasing the intensity of hurricanes! Changes in SSTs UNDER the path of hurricanes could be changing the intensity of hurricanes. (Hurricanes are heat engines powered by a temperature difference, so SST may not be the critical temperature parameter.)

So where is the data showing that hurricanes intensify more when they pass over warmer water? If this year’s record breaking percentage of Cat 4/5 hurricanes haven’t passed over warmer water than hurricanes during recent years when the percentage was much lower, then GW won’t increase the intensity of the average hurricane in the future.

Intensity vs time data suggests that more Cat 3 hurricanes are intensifying to Cat 4/5 because of global warming. This suggests focusing specifically on SST under the Cat 3 portion of the track. Fewer tropical storms are becoming tropical cyclones, so SSTs before this transition would make an interesting control. (No, I won’t believe that warmer SSTs make one transition harder and the other easier.)

FWIW, the Pat Michaels’ 2006 GRL paper says the correlation between SST and TC wind speed is low in the Atlantic. The observed increase in maximum wind speed with maximum SST is about 5% per degC. The difference between the average Cat 3 and Cat 4 is 17% (or 3 degC of SST warming). Figure 3 shows that an SST of 28 degC appears to be a threshold for producing a Cat 3 storm, but further increases in SST didn’t increase intensity.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.495.4998&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

0
0

I can only say, “Write on, brother!” (Or Sister/Mother as appropriate.)

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

0
0

Berth, as one who is half-Irish, I understand that many Spanish sailors got to shore and contributed significantly to the gene pool.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

0
0

moso, I looked at a lot of dodgy government-backed projects in Queensland, but the 1990s Tully Millstream Hydro project seemed very viable. It was opposed by whitewater rafters et al and dropped. Amazing that if the various ALP government’s desire to cut GHG emissions was genuine, that they didn’t resurrect the plan. Perhaps they got rainfall forecasts from Flim Flammery, the paleologist turned climate go-to guru for the ALP.


Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by mosomoso

0
0

I suppose we have to consider what sort of world we want to leave to white water rafters’ grandchildren, who may also want to go white water rafting. Not to mention the grandchildren of the white water rafters’ grandchildren. Heaven knows, a time could come when white water rafters have to travel to a different river for their sport. Those will be the times which try white water rafters’ souls!

Well, at least you tried, Great Cunn.

Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Obama Is Ignoring The Science On Climate Change | PA Pundits - International

0
0

[…] and participant in the International Panel on Climate Change and National Academy of Sciences, writes that when politicians talk about an undeniable climate “consensus” they are brushing over […]

Comment on The conceits of consensus by blueice2hotsea

0
0

hockeyschtick

Oops. I need to fix #3 and clarify. Thanks,
Can you either correct or affirm this statement?

Collisions delay photon emission to space in the sense that energy that would otherwise be directly radiated to space is instead largely transferred via collision to non-GHGs which eventually rise via convection to ERL where collisions with GHGs transfer energy back to the GHGs which then radiate photons to space.

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by PA

0
0

I’m not a climate scientist and don’t play one on TV but…

What is the relationship of saturated lapse rate (MALR) and class 4/5 cyclones/hurricanes?

Is this information available?

One would expect that for a heat engine the greater the differential between source and sink the more efficient the engine.

Does CO2 or average global temperature have any effect on MALR in the tropics?

Comment on Hurricanes and global warming: 10 years post Katrina by aaron

0
0

Has citi asked for any political favors lately, or received any in recent history? I can’t seem to recall.

This analysis is striking, since a corporation of their skill set certainly wouldn’t benefit from convoluted regulation and additional accounting requirements.

;)

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images