Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by popesclimatetheory
↧
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Jim D
They tested sub-ensembles and the full ensemble. The Steinman paper is here.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/SteinmanEtAlScience15.pdf
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by Vaughan Pratt
@PA: If you only look at the existing part of your chart it doesn’t look that linear.
Here’s log2(co2 – 280) for the annual Mauna Loa data.
You have a keen eye for nonlinearity…
And with slowing emissions growth to 2040 and attenuation of emissions after 2040
…and the clairvoyance of a Nostradamus.
↧
Comment on A closer look at scenario RCP8.5 by popesclimatetheory
In History, Chicken Little was wrong, much more often than right.
When the sky did fall from time to time, Chicken Little was caught off guard.
About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold. About 1000 years ago, there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was called the Little Ice Age. It is warm now because it is supposed to be warm now. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it.
When the oceans are warm and wet, it snows more and that bounds the upper limits of temperature and sea level. When the oceans are cold and frozen, it snows less and that bounds the lower limits of temperature and sea level.
CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water.
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Steven Mosher
Simple. Look harder.
↧
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by HAS
Jim D, I’ve read the paper thanks.
“They tested sub-ensembles and the full ensemble.”
How much do you know about experimental design?
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by matthewrmarler
jim2: <i>A better question is how did Mann get a PhD? </i>
Under supervision.
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Mike Flynn
Steven Mosher,
If you read what you linked to, you might discover it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
“The differences between the actual binding energy and that calculated from the regression equations seems to be related to an internal shell structure of the nuclei.”
In other words, the model isn’t very accurate, and we don’t know why.
Read harder. You might find your missing clue. You might even discover something about effective communication using the English language.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by PA
It seems to me that the 90’s were somewhat the result of decreasing albedo and not increased forcing.
Explaining the pause is sort of backwards. It could be argued that the 90s trend exceeded the forcing and the 90s are what really need to be explained.
Abstract. The recent slowdown in global warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring,
The models are pretty bad, if it took the pause to get them to question the model projections perhaps they should go into another line of work.
↧
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Mike Flynn
Brian G Valentine,
Of course Michael Mann is correct! How could a Nobel Prize winner be wrong about anything? He’s the goto man if your treemometer is giving incorrect readings, and needs splicing.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Jim D
Some. What’s your criticism? The use of subensembles is a method that gives a measure of the uncertainty.
What is your opinion of linear detrending to represent 20th century forced changes? Are you going to say linear detrending is better, or that this paper is an improvement?
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by mosomoso
So many people know so much about the deep hydrosphere. Looking at their models and theories…it’s all so vivid…like they’d been there, almost.
With much of what’s under our feet and flippers unvisited and unknown, it’s just as well we’ve got clever cookies who can guess it all. Saves a trip and the money can go to…well, more highly educated guessing using more of that “best available knowledge”.
Break out the maypole and mead, and let’s have a passion play or two. Those grand old medieval days are back.
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by PA
douglasproctor
1. There is no CAGW problem at least in the way you mean. CAGW is the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming, a religious cult that has infiltrated the government and managed to scam some tax dollars from the government. All funding for CAGW should be terminated under the establishment clause and an attempt made to recover previous funding.
2. The people who want novelty power systems are members of a rich elite that can afford to pay for them. The subsidies for renewable energy should be stopped immediately. If the rich elites want renewable energy they can pay for it out of pocket instead of gouging the taxpaying poor.
3. There is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuel. Coal is black shiny, kind of pretty and I like the smell. Renewable energy is ugly and unreliable and should be banned (unless paid for by the rich elites).
4. There is nothing wrong CO2, it is the basis of life on the planet. The planet was depleted of CO2 for most of mankind’s existence. We need more CO2 and should investigate soot to CO2 conversion. Since some people are hoarding their CO2 we should fund research into methods of unsequestering CO2 efficiently and completely.
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
5. Looking at the quotes from global warmers it is pretty obvious they aren’t honest or trustworthy. Claiming that humanity should be reduced to a couple of 100 million in number and that our infrastructure should be destroyed makes me question their motivation and whether they really have our best interests at heart. Reducing CO2, making power limited and expensive, blighting the landscaping with expensive toys that kill animals and waste resources, are the sorts of things one would do to create future food and power crises.
It is not clear it the global warmers actions are malicious or misinformed.
↧
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Ron Graf
JCH, I would keep a little modesty on making GMST analysis of a time series created just for local weather and fishing purposes before the invention of horseless carriages.
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by HAS
Jim D
The problem is that there is no independent verification of the estimates of natural variation. So one can not tell which technique gives a better estimate based on this experiment (but one can say that the Steinman attempt is flawed because it violates the assumptions of the statistics it uses in the way it draws inferences from the multiple models).
What the experiment tests is an artifact of GCMs. It derives a statistic called internal variability from the models (and observations) and describes its behaviour.
Unfortunately GCMs do not reproduce the observed temperatures in the regions of interest well. So any conclusion breaks down. To make any claims Steinman, at a minimum, should have demonstrated those relationship between the models and observations.
I’d also note that there are experimental techniques that could also be used to do this better. The most obvious is to develop a set of relationships based on the period when external forcing was limited, and then test those out of sample (i.e. when external forcings build). However I suspect because of the limitations in GCMs’ ability to replicate the key phenomena, this might not add much to our understanding.
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by -1=e^iπ
This is very interesting. I greatly appreciate this blog post.
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by skepticgonewild
Tyndall measuring the opacity of CO2 is somehow a proof of the GHE? That’s a gigantic stretch. Tyndall also also clung to the mistaken notion of luminiferous aether as well.
↧
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by beththeserf
Let them eat gruel!
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Peter M Davies
Whose post – PA’s? If so I agree!
↧
Comment on Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated? by Peter M Davies
Yep. Medieval days would have been much more enjoyable. No complications from do-gooders, greenies and nanny governments telling us what is good for us!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
