Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Bob Weber

$
0
0

Vuk, in the early CET years, the ocean was colder from the low solar activity of the Maunder Minimum. The ocean is now warmer from the solar activity increase since then, which peaked at the end of the solar modern maximum in 2004. Warmer oceans in winter lead to higher winter temps moreso than higher summer temps at the CET latitude.

In case anyone wasn’t sure, the sun caused ‘global’ warming.

Sunspot activity was 65% more active for 70 years during the modern solar maximum from 1935.5-2004.5, when the annual average SSN was 108.5, than it was during the previous 70 years from 1865.5-1934.5, when it averaged 65.8, using http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt.

I should point out that the v1 SIDC SSNs were 89% higher during the modern maximum, vs 65% for v2. AFAIK, the TSI reconstruction below is based on v1, http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/ARCHIVE/V1.0/yearssn.dat.

The versions differ but the modern maximum readily stands out in both.


Comment on 400(?) years of warming by afonzarelli

$
0
0

Dr. C., i’ll assume they got the co2 hiatus from ice cores here. Could it be that the “hiatus” is really just an artifact caused by smoothing perhaps? If you extend the temperature part of bart’s graph backward in time, we can guess that co2 stood at 300 ppm circa 1940. (before that there is a drop in the carbon growth rate with much lower temps) Before the hiatus, smoothing would produce higher numbers in the core as numbers were increasingly stable below, but increasingly growing from above. After the hiatus, smoothing would produce lower numbers in the core as lower concentrations would likely migrate higher due to pressure. The hiatus, then, would be a transition between the two periods (before and after) resulting in no apparent change in co2 levels…

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Bob Weber

$
0
0

It is only temporary, as it’s peak El Nino. What goes up must come down.
Don’t sweat it, La Nina and low solar activity are on deck.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by JCH

Comment on Week in review – science edition by mwgrant

$
0
0

correction

mwgrant wrote:

As I remember both the plateau (sill) …

Bad memory…try

for resid~x+y+z [R formula notation] plateau increases…

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

wrong.

what you estimate is lambda.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

“Uncertainty in the global temperatures data (prior to 1900) is far too great.
Some of the central/west European data including the CET are the only ones worth of the longer term serious consideration.”

This is funny.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

go read climate audit on boreholes.

I am always stunned at the way skeptics latch on to the bits of data they like.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams

$
0
0

New Climate Model Predicts Likelihood Of Greenland Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise, And Dangerous Temperatures
The model is based on idealized representations of societal, technological and policy factors,” said lead researcher Jeremy Fyke, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory

“global temperature rise sufficient to lose the Greenland Ice Sheet and generate seven meters of long-term sea level rise, or tropical region warming to a level that is deadly to humans and other mammals.”
http://www.ladailypost.com/content/new-climate-model-predicts-likelihood-greenland-ice-melt-sea-level-rise-and-dangerous

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by PA

$
0
0
<i>"Biases can be largely removed using empirical techniques a posteriori"</i> This sounds about right. There seems to be a lot of posterior in their technique.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by human1ty1st

$
0
0

Tim “For me it’s a toss up between electricity and toilet paper.”

Of course its important to not mix up their uses.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by PA

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by GaryM

$
0
0

The ocean cycles are long
But the Earth is patient

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by JCH

$
0
0

You guys apparently have never experienced a real hiatus. A year or so ago people were conjecturing that the modern hiatus might last until 2030.

Not me.

I was speculating it was about to go paws up – die.

See, with a real AMO falsifyin’ hiatus, the hiatus actually lasts a long time; as in, as long as 64 years instead of just 8 or so years.

18 years long my butt. RSS is for d___mies.

Anyway, with October, the pause has started coding. The DNR clipboard is hangin’ on the bed.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by human1ty1st

$
0
0

BW,
agreed the interesting thing is where temps settle after the El Nino lagged affects have worked through the system. Temps back at the ~2002-2014 mean would look like a continuation of the pause. Although whether this or something different will happen in the short term looks difficult to predict.


Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Kathleen H.

$
0
0

Question from a lay person: I note that solar events are mentioned as possible explanations for various climate changes. What I do not see is any discussion or data regarding changes in the earth’s relationship to the sun in distance or axial shifts.

Which brings me to polar wondering. It’s noted that, at the axis, these shifts seem minimal and measured in centimeters, but wouldn’t that change in polar distance to the sun increase (or decrease depending on the pole) exponentially along longitudinal lines? Would that not account for one pole’s ice melting while the other is stable or grows in any period? What would that effect be on climate or increased temperatures changes over different areas of earth as it wonders back and forth?

Thank you for your time in responding.

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by ianl8888

Comment on 400(?) years of warming by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

Correct me if I’m wrong.

People promoting boreholeometers believe that surface heat from say, 500 years ago crept below the surface during the day, and did not move back toward the surface at night when the surface cooled.

Instead, by the same mechanism used by CO2 to move heat into the cold depths of the oceans, the surface heat moved from the colder surface to the hotter interior, where it remained, until supposedly measured by the Warmists at depths greater than 20 meters.

During 500 years, the temperature at a particular depth remained sufficiently different from the layers above and below, to be measured later. In other words, adjacent bodies at different temperatures stopped obeying the laws of physics until called on to do so by the climatologists.

If you are particularly gullible, you have to suspend disbelief, and accept, as NOAA do, that –

“Departures from the expected increase in temperature with depth (the geothermal gradient) can be interpreted in terms of changes in temperature at the surface in the past, which have slowly diffused downward, warming or cooling layers meters below the surface.” – NOAA.

So cooling slowly diffuses downward, while the surface above remains warmer than the “coolness” below it. The “coolness” keeps descending, and then stops, waiting to be measured. Or warming, if that suits your purpose better. At least according to NOAA!

What nonsense! More modelling, supposedly showing that other silliness such as treemometers is scientific, and accurate. It should be noted that the first 20 meters or so of borehole data is discarded, as the seasonal influence of the Sun can be detected at this depth. We are supposed to believe that temperature changes caused by the Sun can be detected at depths beyond which the influence of the Sun can be detected – by definition!

Oh what fun it must be, to be a climatologist. No accountability, no responsibility, no need to learn physics or thermodynamics – just watch Star Trek, and “make it so”!

Cheers.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

“On the other hand”, he said, “there will be over a million square kilometres of extra arable land available, in Greenland alone.”

“Models show that after accounting for isostatic rebound effects, sea levels will actually drop.” he added.

“It’s actually better than we thought, and I’m off to the pub for a self congratulatory drink.”

Cheers.

Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Elections have consequences, little yimmy. The people put the Republicans in charge of Congress. No matter how much you clowns whine, the majority get’s to rule the committees. Get over it.

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images