Wagathon,
I prefer to use actual data. Ocean heat content down to 2000 meters at the highest level on instrument record for the period Jan-Mar. 2012.
See:http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Really Wag, your fabrications are astounding!
Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by R. Gates
↧
↧
Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by Pekka Pirilä
Loehle paper was written too early and later data told that it’s conclusions were wrong.
Douglass and Knox the one that got it’s result from erroneous statistical analysis. It used also the correct method and that resulted in slight warming trend.
Analysis that has been done with the whole data presently available tells that there has been a weak warming trend. You just insist on using outdated and erroneous analysis although better is available.
↧
Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by qbeamus
Um, no. The fact that certain resources have not had conventional property rights assigned in them does not come close to proving that “the commons is a metaphore.” In fact, “The Tragedy of the Commons” was written about, you know, “the commons”–something that really existed. Not a metaphore.
Plus which, your example is simply mistaken. There ARE property rights in water–they’re just a different set of rules, which we made to account for it’s different nature. In fact, there are two sets of rules. Riparian rights are different in the U.S. East vs. the West, because the nature of the supply differed, producing two different societal responses. Which should nicely illustrate the principle that society can and does develop property rights as a means for efficient distribution of scarce resources.
But again, although property rights in water are different from other kinds of property rights, they are, no less, propery rights.
↧
Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by David Wojick
You are right Timg. Santer has published a long string of papers that go to great, often speculative, lengths to explain away anomalies with AGW. This looks like what is called “theory saving.” A little theory saving is good science but too much actually weakens the hypothesis being protected. It is like adding circles to circles to keep the Earth in the center of the universe.
↧
Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by Wagathon
Global warming alarmists should first find the missing ocean heat content before glibly throwing up the specter of a couple of years of warming against the mast that more thoughtful persons must scrapes off, sweep up and clamor over like all of the other feckless global warming confabulations that weather underground has described that have since been debunked.
↧
↧
Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist
The flame temperature is much higher – and the this is as near as I can makre out the temperature at which the products of combustuon are produced.
↧
Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist
ah…make…combustion…
↧
Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by qbeamus
Rats! This argument was starting to get somewhere, I thought. I’ve long felt the “sensitivity” parameter, expressed as degC/2XCO2 was non-physical, because at some point the atmosphere would be completely opaque to radiation in CO2′s absorbtion spectrum (and that point would likely be long before the atmosphere was entirely CO2). I’ve wondered, without trying to do the math, how much the peak of the Earth’s spectrum would need to move to keep the areas under the curves equal with CO2′s spectrum cut out entirely. That result would give the upper limit of the change in temperature that could be caused by CO2 greenhouse effect (assuming thermal equalibrium). Again, I’ve not done the math, but my guess is that the fraction of Earth’s emmission spectrum that is in CO2′s absorbtion spectrum is a tiny, tiny percentage, making the maximum greenhouse effect of CO2 very small.
Add to that the fact that much of CO2′s spectrum is already blocked, and the effect is even smaller. I’ve never found reliable numbers, but I’ve heard that CO2-band radiation is already 85% blocked by water vapor.
↧
Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by DocMartyn
gbaikie, indeed many people have suggested that polar currents cool the oceans from 500m to 4500m.
I am yet to be convinced, I’m open minded, but unconvinced.
Supply the calculation how the top can average 15 degrees and the 4 km be at 4 degrees, cooled by water at 4 degrees.
↧
↧
Comment on Sea level rise discussion thread by Chief Hydrologist
Webby – I am pretty sure that adding enough energy to activate the oxidisation process in an exothermic reaction is not news.
↧
Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2
Doc, “Supply the calculation how the top can average 15 degrees and the 4 km be at 4 degrees, cooled by water at 4 degrees.” The temperature of the super saline water sinking with sea ice formation is around -1C. The Antarctic sea ice melt/freeze cycle in an area the size of Australia. That’s not insignificant. The 4C by the way is for fresh pure water. The maximum density “disappears” with impurities.
↧
Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by manacker
Ocean warming explained (Santer)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8003/7181245859_63decfea9c_b.jpg
↧
Comment on Causes(?) of ocean warming by P.E.
Not really. Oceans absorb the IR directly into the water. It’s a different analysis.
↧
↧
Comment on Psychology of Uncertainty by goodspkr
George will wrote a wonderful column on his Down’s syndrome son’s 40th birthday. Here’s a paragraph having to do with the human condition.
“Judging by Jon, the world would be improved by more people with Down syndrome, who are quite nice, as humans go. It is said we are all born brave, trusting and greedy, and remain greedy. People with Down syndrome must remain brave in order to navigate society’s complexities. They have no choice but to be trusting because, with limited understanding, and limited abilities to communicate misunderstanding, they, like Blanche DuBois in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” always depend on the kindness of strangers. Judging by Jon’s experience, they almost always receive it.”
↧
Comment on State shift (?) in Earth’s biosphere by Beth Cooper
The death of Elinor Ostrom is a sad loss. See a talk by Elinor Ostrom at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy posted on the ‘Conservative Perspectives Part 11,’ thread by Chief Hydrologist, 7th June, 5.41 pm.
↧
Comment on State shift (?) in Earth’s biosphere by GaryM
“What I don’t like about the paper is that in the final paragraph, it leaps to making sweeping policy recommendations.”
What would be the point of claiming the sky is falling, if you couldn’t use it to push your political agenda? Name a doom and gloom paper that doesn’t call for a massive increase in government.
↧
Comment on State shift (?) in Earth’s biosphere by GaryM
“How much longer do these doom-hyping clowns get to dominate the public square?”
4 months, 23 days.
↧
↧
Comment on State shift (?) in Earth’s biosphere by Andrew Russell
Schneider in fact was not “honest” unless you use his definition of “honest”. He was in fact a nasty backstabber who claimed to be a scientist but refused to follow the Scientific Method. He chose instead to be allied with Peter Gleick, Michael Mann, Ben Santer, and the rest of the Hockey Team.
When the editor of Climate Change, he supported Michael Mann’s refusal to archive data when it was requested by Steven McIntyre, who Schneider had asked to be a reviewer of Mann’s paper there . He was also up to his neck in the Wahl and Ammann scandal.
See:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/a-somewhat-late-response-to-schneider/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/20/stephen-schneider/
“The Hockey Stick Illusion”, Andrew Montford, pages 158,204,212,403, 422-424.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
↧
Comment on State shift (?) in Earth’s biosphere by NW
We also have this on p. 54 with no reference: “Rapid climate change shows no signs of slowing.” I don’t have a personal position on this, but it seems to be debated here regularly with no firm conclusion (to put it mildly). When I find things like this in a paper, it makes me wonder about other confident assertions in the paper.
↧
Comment on State shift (?) in Earth’s biosphere by Pekka Pirilä
Predicting catastrophes is crying wolfs. Some people see wolfs far too easily, but wolfs do exist.
The Malthusian catastrophe has been predicted far too often and far too early, but even now the humanity continues on a path that’s not sustainable and the escape routes appear more and more clogged.
It’s a simple fact that the influence of human societies has reached truly global dimensions and that several different limits are not far if the development continues along past lines. The belief in the sufficiency of human ingenuity in solving all essential problems is just naive. Even more naive is the belief that free markets will do that.
Humans are on similar path with many animals whose populations grow with regular interval over sustainable limits and then collapse. The free competition between individuals does not prevent that. The collapse will not be the end of the humanity and even less the end of the Earth but it’ll be extremely painful in some way, whatever it turns out to be.
Climate change is just one factor in this. It’s in some ways different from the other main factors. It’s not the most fundamental but it may be a major mechanism in building up the pain of the future.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
