Do you have a link for that?
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Peter Lang
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by David Wojick
This is a pretty good rough taxonomy, not a caricature.
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by Burl Henry
The “background” average global temperature (when there are no El Nino or La Nina or large volcanic
events occurring) can be closely determined by using the Climate Sensitivity factor of approx. .02 deg. C of temp. rise for each net Megatonne of reduction in anthropogenic SO2 emissions. (This factor derived from the 1991 volcanic eruptions: 0.45 deg. C. temp. rise as 23 Megatonnes of sulfur dioxide aerosols settled out of the atmosphere).
2015 is an unusually hot year. To avoid even hotter temperatures, all Clean Air efforts need to be suspended until mitigation strategies can be developed and implemented.
Sulfur dioxide aerosol levels, and the natural events
noted above are the only recent drivers of climate change. CO2 proveably has no climatic effect.
All of the above is heretical, but true. Comments?
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by ristvan
So, a question. What part of observed ~1965 to ~2000 warming is just ‘spatial and temporal variation’, and how much is AGW?
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by Geoff Sherrington
Nick,
Can you reference papers showing the “adds to” effect that you mention?
More generally, can you reference any papers that allege to show that a uniform CO2 heating response has been derived for a number of adjacent regions, like those around the Atlantic Ocean?
It has always been a worry in my own reading that CO2 warming appeared to act regionally, with different patterns able to be resolved into different regions.
Thanks Geoff.
↧
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by Nick
Hi Nick,
I didn’t get the impression that the author was arguing that CO2 made natural variations go away, or add to them. I do see him saying that the addition of more CO2 into the atmosphere should create similar characteristics across the globe.
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by Nick Stokes
Warming of what?
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by Nick Stokes
“addition of more CO2 into the atmosphere should create similar characteristics”
Why? It just adds a flux of heat. They will be no more similar than before.
You’re a farmer. Your income fluctuates from year to year. Then you inherit some shares with a dividend stream. You get richer, but the fluctuations don’t change. And you still have good and bad paddocks.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by mikeroberts2013
Indeed. I found it odd, a couple of years ago, that Judith Curry used the word “recovery” when she mentioned the Arctic sea ice minimum that year, because a scientist using a single data point to make that call is highly unusual. The “recovery” didn’t continue last year (which ended about the same as the previous year) and now we have the 3rd lowest, by some measures (5th lowest by others). Clearly, there was no recovery in Arctic sea ice.
↧
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by Nick Stokes
The AR$ has <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-6.html" rel="nofollow">Sec 2.9.6</a> on the spatial patterns of radiative forcing. But the situation here is simple. Radiative forcing is small, 1-2 W/m2 typically quoted. But it persists, so heat accumulates in the earth, until a new balance of OLR is struck. The warming effect anywhere is the accumulation of decades. The mixing rate globally in the atmosphere is on a scale of days or weeks.
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by Steven Mosher
“You’re a farmer. Your income fluctuates from year to year. Then you inherit some shares with a dividend stream. You get richer, but the fluctuations don’t change. And you still have good and bad paddocks.”
+100.
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by kim
Of the warmer places.
================
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by kim
Bubble cumulus, toil and turbulence.
=================
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by kim
I’ve long maintained that sea ice volume is a leading indicator of recovery, but every time I think about it I have a different reason it leads. I’ve even wondered if the Stadium Wave has enough precision to guess where.
So, keep an eye on it.
==============
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by kim
Engine management softwhere all over the world heaved a great sigh of relief. Whaddya think made that moon red?
==================
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by Jim Steele
Unless regional variability is understood, then cause of climate change will be obscured and sensitivity to CO2 misrepresnted. Most tree ring analyses suggest much less warming in natural habitat. It would be an absurd choice to suggest CO2 warming doesnt happen in natural habitats and equally absurd to suggest all those trees suddenly stopped working. The same cyclical temperature change seen in the USA were observed in Greenland while in east Antarctic CO2 hasnt caused warming. If there is a CO2 induced accumulation of heat then we should see maximum temperatures increasing, but there is a widespread lack of warming for maximum temperatures. In a 1997 paper by Easterly the authors noted ” Maximum temperatures in southern South America and in Southeast Asia (Fig. 1), two areas not previously analyzed, did not change significantly, although the data for Southeast Asia suggest that temperatures there decreased slightly.” In the Arctic Kahl (1993) observed air temperatures were cooling, the warming of the Arctic only happened after winds removed insulating ice and allowed heat to ventilate. The Arctic contribution to the recent high global average temperature is due to ventilating heat, not increased residency time of heat due to CO2. Unless regional climates are adequately analyzed the global average does more to obscure our understanding climate change.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by justinwonder
Hark,
“…his daughter somehow was able to squirrel away a couple billy…”
Horatio Alger story! It could happen to anyone!
↧
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by Jim Steele
I meant to type Easterling not Easterly
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by stevenreincarnated
“+100.”
-100, not because I disagree with the general argument but because it isn’t so profound as to deserve any points. I don’t want SM’s biases to go to your head. In the mean time ristvan asked a question that deserves a considered answer. I would think it deserves a considered answer by more than just you but by the entire climate science community. All the evidence of warming is perfectly compatible with a change in poleward ocean heat transport. How much of it was?
↧
Comment on Regional anomalies in the evolution of surface air temperature by David Springer
Stokes writes: "The warming effect anywhere is the accumulation of decades."
There's no warming effect in the continental United States which has both great coverage and compensation for urban heat. Sounds like decades of evidence contrary to CO2 warming.
Of course Stokes won't agree and will offer some excuse why the best data in the world, over the country emitting the most CO2 until recently, isn't applicable.
Here are some straws ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| feel free to reach for as many as you need, Nick.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
