Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Science is not about certainty by Chad Wozniak

0
0

David Hagen -

Let me second your point about higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere NOT leading to high temperatures.

But I can go one better: 2 billion years ago, beforer the appearance of thr blue-green algae that converted alomst all of it to O2, the atmmosphere was TWENTY PERCENT CO2!! And not only that, but right about that time the Earth went into s deep freeze with icecaps reaching nearly to the equator.

So, someone tell me how 0.04 persent, or even 2 percent CO2 in the air is going to make the Earth burn up.

You AGW types, cut the reactionary leftist political balderdash and let’s get down to honest science. Leftist politics is neither science nor honest,, but rather their opposites.


Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Bart R

0
0

ferd berple | June 10, 2012 at 11:36 pm |

*cough*

That theory has some cardinal holes in it.

There are many sources of obstacles to determining future outcomes.

Sensitivity to initial conditions such that precision of measurements precludes all but trivial predictions is only one such impediment.. albeit, one we can be certain of. :)

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Joshua

0
0

There’s a clear consensus among “skeptics” that “the consensus” is wrong, indeed, that “consensus-based” approaches to scientific analysis are inherently flawed.

And all the while, I’m told by a consensus of “skeptics” that there is no consensus among “skeptics,” even as “skeptics” frequently talk of how “skeptics” do or don’t view climate science and how the views of “skeptics” differ from the views of “the consensus.”

Similar to how “skeptics” are absolutely certain that “the consensus” doesn’t deal well with uncertainty.

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by Captain Kangaroo

0
0

Joshua,

I would tell you Captain Kangaroo is – but then I would have to shoot you.

Suffice to say he is a climate warrior on a blue horse – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=blue_horse.jpg – and exists to swap pointless jibes with the pissantly progressive when it amuses him. As such – irony is a blunt instrument, lonesome is part of the iconic nature of being a cowboy and some people are not worth arguing with but should nonetheless be creatively insulted anyway. Those who instinctively choose the wrong side of the argument prominent. I had whether to responf to your comment below seriously on your inability to actually come to a meaningfull resolution – rather than simply whine – or to respond with the contempt you deserve. And here you come to me.

Diogenes on the other hand addresses uncertainty both with reference to probabilistic forecasts within finite volumes of phase space and to the deterministically chaotic nature of climate models – quoting at length leaders in the field of climate sceince and computing but realising that this means nothing to the hoi polloi. That he also defines risk as the nexus between probablity and consequences and proposes cost benefit positive solutions including conservation farming and billion dollars energy technology prizes should earn brownie points from both sides.

The contrast to you couldn’t be starker. Trivial irrelevancy versus a considered exploration of both science and policy. Climate warrior point scoring as opposed to defining constructive ways forward. Nonsense as opposed to legitimate discourse.

Cheers

Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by gbaikie

0
0

“I didn’t write that sand would get that hot or a car, I wrote that a similar surface, i.e. a black surface that’s well insulated from the back and protected from convective cooling. Such a surface can really get significantly hotter.”

Make a good vacuum and have window. Put black felt in it.
Preheat everything to 100 C, put in the sun, at sea level on Earth and it will cool.
If continued heating it [with electric heater] to 99 C, it would not get above 99 C.
If add sunlight [with reflectors/mirrors] you can get it above 100 C.

Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by R. Gates

0
0

From the Yeager et. al. paper:

“Global satellite observations show the sea surface temperature (SST) increasing since the 1970s in all ocean basins, while the net air-sea heat flux, Q, decreases.”

_____
While it certainly could be the case that “natural variability” dominates this trend, with the inference stated by the researchers that “diminished ocean cooling due to vertical ocean processes” is the direct cause, what one would really have to at least consider is the potential of other not completely specified dynamics. Specifically, what possible role that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might play, and how these increases could impact “diminished ocean cooling”, while at the same time giving higher SST’s. If one is concerned with the mechanisms whereby the air-sea flux Q has been decreasing, rather than look at some “natural variability” in the oceans, why not begin with something we know is changing in air side of Q, and thus consider that the rapid increase in greenhouse gases might indeed result in higher SST’s, while at the same time, reducing the rate of heat flux from ocean to atmosphere by alteration of the thermal gradient across the ocean skin layer. This reduction in the thermal gradient, with higher temperatures at the very top of the skin (i.e. SSTs), would result in a reduction in Q. At least this might be a plausible place for further research, rather than just tossing it into the “natural variability” basket.

Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by R. Gates

0
0

wagathon,

Unfortunately for your little model of reality, the oceans did not “start cooling” in 2010, but continued on with their 40+ year upward climb.

You of course will want to cherry pick around the 2010 El Nino event, where of course the oceans release more heat to the atmosphere, but even you must know that ENSO events have riding on top of longer-term forcing signal. During the period from Jan-March 2012, ocean heat content down to 2000 meters was at instrument record highs. An inconvenient truth that you, as a skeptic to AGW, will have to find a way to cherry pick around.

Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by Alexander Biggs

0
0

I’m not sure that stochastic related mixing depths can have much more than local climate implications.These papers do underscore the need to understand the long term effect of the permanent addition to world heat of the 1905-1940 atmospheric temperature rise (seemingly ignored by the IPCC) and how and when this extra heat percolated through the oceans and eventually raised the surface/ atmosphere heat flux.


Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by Wagathon

0
0

“Even when alarmist evidence is conclusively discredited (e.g. the hockey stick graph), the climate alarmists continue to use it, and to dismiss all conflicting evidence no matter how sound or voluminous it may be. When their own claims fail, they revise the evidence, not their hypothesis. Recent examples of this have involved the current global cooling trend, the absence of a signature tropical tropospheric hot spot, Antarctic cooling, oceanic cooling, unchanged rates of sea level rise, etc. All these phenomena have been subjected to dubious data manipulation trying to make a silk purse to suit GW out of a sow’s ear of empirical data which refuses to conform to their hopes.” (Walter Starck)

Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by DocMartyn

0
0

Can I ask a simple question?
Why not just get a 1 km long cable and place 1,000 thermometers, 1 meter apart, and place a weight on one end and a floatation device on the other. Drop it in the Pacific ocean. Stick a diode array spectrophotometer on the float, then stick it in the central pacific, the tropic of Cancer or Capricorn will be perfect.
Now measure the temperature at each depth during one whole year. At the bottom the temperature will be 4 degrees. At the top it will be high in summer and low in winter. You will get a series of sine-wave(ish) temperature changes. The peak-trough positions will deviate with depth, from this you can calculate the lag.
The dampening effect of depth will tell you the rate of heat transfer at each depth.
It’s not difficult. .

Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by steven

0
0

The rate of mixing can vary widely from location to location.

Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by Doug Badgero

0
0

Question for the board loosely related to this subject:

The zero feedback temperature change for a doubling of CO2 is widely accepted as around 1C. One degree C in what? Water? Air? Some percent of both? The physics of GHGs trap energy. How this extra energy manifests as a change in temperature depends into what this energy is deposited…………no? There must be an assumption how this extra energy is divided up within the mass that makes up our biosphere but have never seen it explicitly stated.

Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by Girma

0
0

JC
Multi-decadal natural internal variability (which is poorly simulated by the climate models) may be the dominant cause of the recent ocean warming (in terms of changes in ocean mixed layer depth and changes in sensible/latent heat fluxes).

You described the oscillation in words.

I am describing it in a graph => http://bit.ly/LyJ9iw

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change: Part II by GaryM

0
0

mike,

What A fan of MORE flabby discourse wrote was that “AEI provides no venues for citizen input,” not that “citizens” didn’t take advantage of the opportunity.

His comment was much more dope on a rope, than rope a dope.

But I would agree with you on one thing. Fan being flat out wrong is him at his very best.

Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by tempterrain

0
0

Erica,
So the sick have to rely on charity? If I were sick or could find a job I think I’d prefer unemployment benefit!
Do you have a model for your society? As far as I know the only antidote, historically, to the threat of totalitarianism, or feudalism, has been democratic activity. But maybe you know something different? Or is it just wishful thinking that you can have freedom without full democracy?
Freedom is about more than just property rights. There’s the freedom to be a member of a trade union. The freedom to set up a Swedish style social democracy if enough voters can be persuaded that its a good idea. The freedom that goes with a well paid job and freedom from worry that you might lose it for no valid reason. Or the freedom from worry that you might not be able to afford the hospital bill if you or your family fall sick.
This are what ordinary people are most concerned about. Yes they want low taxes too, and naturally there has to be a discussion and an argument at election time of where the balance should lie. Election results don’t always please me, but if they don’t, I still accept the result.
I don’t start whinging that people just should be allowed to vote for whatever it is that I might disapprove of. That’s called democracy.


Comment on Conservative perspectives on climate change by tempterrain

0
0

Missed out a couple of negatives in above. Should be “….couldn’t find a job…. ” and ” …..shouldn’t be allowed to vote…”

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

‘We know what global annual energy consumption is: 0.474×10^21 J

We know that the heat capacity of the atmosphere is: 5 x10^21 Joules/Degree Kelvin

So the potential warming in the atmosphere from combustion is 0.1 degrees C. This seems quite significant.’

This is 10 times the potential warming from radiative forcing in a year – and I assume that the excess is lost to space.

I have suggested on a number of occasions that you change your style to something that is less partisan and abusive. Again I have suggested that an pretending that an engineer and environental scientist can’t do the math is absurd. We are left only with your moronic insistance that I am saying something other than what I have clearly said. That and your one dimensional box models that are clearly physically nonsensical.

Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by gbaikie

0
0

“The zero feedback temperature change for a doubling of CO2 is widely accepted as around 1C. One degree C in what? Water? Air? Some percent of both? The physics of GHGs trap energy. How this extra energy manifests as a change in temperature depends into what this energy is deposited…………no? There must be an assumption how this extra energy is divided up within the mass that makes up our biosphere but have never seen it explicitly stated.”

That is the deal with most of this so called science.

But if look at general hypothesis, one could guess it has to do with reducing the loss of heat during the night.
But the believer don’t seem very supportive of this. Instead they seem like the idea that it have something to do making heat waves worst or something.
Nor is does there seem to be much focus on looking at whether nites or winter nite temperature are warmer. These should be where one could find these famous fingerprints, because it should be where most of affect was, assuming there is effect from rising CO2 levels.

Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

So unless I have slipped a decimal place – always possible – and you wish to dispute my numbers I suggest you take your idiotic hand waving and abuse and stick it somewhere.

Comment on Week in review 6/8/12 by Bad Andrew

0
0

“More serious debate occurs on the technical threads”

Color me skeptical that this is always true. ;)

Andrew

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images