Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on What global warming looks like (?) by Captain Kangaroo


Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Erica

0
0

Lacis is patently obviously hostage to a primarily political outlook of his own.

Desperately wanting to believe that the Climategate emails were hacked rather than leaked, he tries on the tired old line that they were taken out of context, misrepresented, and misinterpreted. And like all the others who make this vaccuous claim, he skips addressing that after three years, not a single shred of evidence to support this has emerged. He simply will not see nothing wrong then with hiding data, sabotaging peer-review etc etc. A paid-up member of the politically-funded ‘Consensus’ is Lacis.

Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Beth Cooper

0
0

That’s about it, Erica, ref Catalogue above – “I” “Q” and “Z”

Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Tomcat

0
0

Eschenbac is not a doctor. He’s a carpenter with no degree. I’m not even sure he graduated high school.

Yet, unlike climate science PHds, he doesn’t root his position in a corrupt science process. I can only assume that the various Climategate ‘tricks’ are what one learns at climate grad schools.

Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Tomcat

0
0

Inter alia, Lacis seems to subscribe to the ‘downwelling’ IR idea that even Realclimate has abandoned. An alarmist’s alarmist.

Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by BatedBreath

0
0

A Lacis
Your dogged ignoring of Climategate simply sends the message that you are at one with the wholesale corruption of science for political ends, that Climategate irrefutably reveals. It’s just that you don’t want it correctly identified as cargo cult, you want the cargo cult to have the influence of a grown-up science.

Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by A Lacis

0
0

David,
I have no way of knowing what went on there at CRU, nor have I had any interaction with anybody at CRU. But why assume it to be an inside leak job when all those impacted describe it as a hack job?

If the CRU e-mail hack were indeed an insider leak job, then why hasn’t the “hero” e-mail leaker surfaced in person, or anonymously gone to Wikileaks to claim credit? And why then would he have also at the same time been hacking into RealClimate to post his e-mails there? None of that makes any logical sense. A great deal about the whole episode is discussed here.

On the other hand, we do have plenty of evidence about a whole news organization run by Rupert Murdoch & Co where hacking appears to have been their accepted way of doing business. That investigation is still ongoing in Britain, and who knows where it will eventually lead. Given their demonstrated success at routinely hacking phone messages, how much more difficult can it be to hack e-mails? Foxnews has been a clear beneficiary of all this climategate stuff, having manufactured a whole climate conspiracy out of virtually nothing of substance.

Comment on What global warming looks like (?) by WebHubTelescope

0
0

Ross is right. Find one natural phenomenon where that rule of thumb does not hold.


Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Beth Cooper

0
0

manaker 04/07 10.02
Jest read yr demagogue catalogue, ‘H’ to ”z’ Max.
Both your list and mine begin and end alike!
‘h,’ ‘hysteria/hallucination,’ and ‘z’, ‘zealotry/zeal.’
Consensus eh! :-) x5

Comment on Macchiavelli and Fortuna’s whim by climatereason

0
0

Fan
Yes you have to admire his diligence and persistence even if you disagree with his results.

It strikes me that there are few from either side who make good presenters which as I say is not surprising as its not really their job to be showmen or women. I understand monckton is especially good in person although I find his over the top style off putting. I must see if our hostess has got any talks on the Internet.
Tonyb

Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Spartacusisfree

0
0

Here’s my take. The GHE, all ~9 K of it, is expressed as a rise in surface temperature. This is because lapse rate causes convection to even the gradients out and the heating is mostly at clouds. These rise more quickly when warmed and precipitation is accelerated.

Climate science’s fixation with volumetric warming is based on zero knowledge of real IR physics and statistical thermodynamics.

Once you completely get rid of the Victorian science you can go forward!

You do get funny effects at times, temperature inversions, the mirage, but frankly speaking Houghton has really messed up the science. The only reason the models can be forced to give apparently high climate sensitivity is a confidence trick.

Comment on Macchiavelli and Fortuna’s whim by JCH

0
0

Absolutely not. 5 meters is the most he thinks can happen if we flip over to nonlinear melting. Nonlinear.

All other estimates, Rahmstorf, etc., are based on linear melting.

The reason the 5 meters is back of an envelope and not out of climate model is simple. Computer modeling for nonlinear melting is in its infancy.

Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by A Lacis

0
0

John,

You must be misinterpreting and mischaracterizing what I wrote about Garth. Though I have not met Garth Paltridge personally, it would have been my expectation that he is, as you say, a quietly spoken, sincere, and very decent man. That he has been victimized by death threats is a clear indication that global climate change is no longer the isolated simply academic topic of scientific discussion and argument among atmospheric scientists, but has instead become a magnet for contentious wrangling, joined in by a vast multitude of “interested” parties with wildly differing agendas, some of which are beyond all reason and rationality.

My description of the radiation book authored by Garth and Martin Platt was a straightforward and honest appraisal, based on the dozen or so books that I have made us of in climate modeling applications. As I stated before, the book Radiative Processes in Meteorology and Climatology by Paltridge and Platt was the state-of-the-art in 1976, and still is an excellent guide for pointing out what all needs to be taken into account in designing a state-of-the-art radiation model for a current climate GCM.

Among the climate skeptics and contrarians, there are more than a few with excellent credentials in scientific research, including several Nobel laureates (as well as some 50 former astronauts), who have proclaimed in no uncertain terms that the current climate science assessment of global warming is patently erroneous. It is easy enough to dismiss these arguments out of hand as being empty nonsense because none of these individuals has ever demonstrated any tangible evidence of understanding the basic fundamentals of atmospheric radiation that would provide some basis in fact, physics, or mathematics to support their stated opinions.

So, perhaps then you can appreciate my being perplexed in regard to Garth’s skepticism on matters about global warming. Understanding of the basic fundamentals of atmospheric radiation is clearly not the problem. But then, why be expressing all the doubt about whether the increase in global temperature attributable to increasing CO2 would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate? Was this based on technical reasoning, or based on some other model derived conclusion? Or was it simply unforced opinion?

I have no way to know. That is why I speculating. It seemed reasonable for me to think that even though he understood all the theory, Garth was not into writing FORTRAN code to construct radiation models. Otherwise he might have included his own examples of atmospheric heating and cooling rates for illustration in his book.

I have described climate modeling (which requires a whole research team) and radiation modeling as being complex and complicated, not to be facetious, but to make the point that the complexity is not so much conceptual, but numerical. Radiation interacts over the entire atmosphere and ground surface, differently with height and viewing geometry for each wavelength of the spectrum. As a result, a good mathematical model and a good computer is required to arrive at the solution.

Basically what that means is that theoretical understanding of the radiative processes is necessary, but not sufficient. An accurate radiation model is needed to show the net result of what is happening at each wavelength. There have been numerous occasions where radiation model results at first appeared surprising, and required a closer look to see what was actually happening.

In one modeling experiment, where the amount of tropospheric aerosol was increased, I expected the surface temperature to decrease, and the stratospheric temperature to also decrease slightly, partly because the entire atmospheric temperature would decrease, and also because the (small) longwave aerosol opacity would reduce the upwelling thermal radiation that provides heat to the stratosphere. The surface temperature and atmospheric temperature decreased as expected, but the upper stratosphere showed a temperature increase. It took some close inspection of the modeling results to finally understand that it was the increase in reflected solar radiation by the aerosol that was being absorbed by ozone to heat the upper stratosphere over and above the cooling produced by the aerosol.

Also, it is known that the greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 produces surface warming while also cooling the stratosphere. The specific reason for the stratospheric cooling is not immediately obvious. A greenhouse model using spectrally gray absorption cannot produce stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming at the same time. An adequate spectral window is require for thermal radiation to allow the cooling of the stratosphere while the troposphere and ground warm in response to increasing greenhouse gases. That is why explicit spectral modeling of thermal radiation is required in climate models to get accurate results for atmospheric heating and cooling.

The one point that I was quoting from the Paltridge and Platt book was about their oversimplifying the thermal radiation problem much too much by assuming that the net thermal flux at the surface is the window radiation, and that the amount absorbed by the atmosphere is also the same amount radiated downward by the atmosphere. While this may be an adequate approximation for characterizing the thermal flux at the ground surface, it is not an adequate description over the entire atmosphere, amounting to throwing the baby out with the bath water, as doing so precludes an accurate characterization of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

If it is that you found my essay to be hurtful or disrespectful toward Garth, then I of course extend my apology, for there most certainly was no such intent. In regard to the characteristic tone of discussion on this blog, I have been labeled everything from “leftist commie fascist” to “dishonest nazi fake and fraud”, and even worse. I assume it all to have been an exercise of their first amendment fun and games for the locol denizens, expressing and wallowing in their self-defining brand of humor mongering, and not explicitly intended to be an expression of ill will toward me, or my mother.

As part of our responsibility to make public the results of our research on climate change, we publish papers in the scientific literature and also post the results in public forum. These results describe our current best understanding of what is happening with global climate (that atmospheric CO2 is increasing as the result of human burning of fossil fuel, that atmospheric CO2 is the principal controlling factor of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, that water vapor and clouds, governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, provide strong feedback magnification of the greenhouse effect, and that the climate equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 is about 3 °C).

Once our climate results are set out in the public forum, they then become a target for others to refute or verify. That is the way science works. Science is very competitive and a rather ruthless enterprise. There are a dozen or more major climate centers out there that are also studying the global climate change problem. If any of them were to find fault with our published results, you can be sure that they will not hesitate to let us know.

And that is where Garth, if he feels that our analyses and results are in error, should not hesitate to tell us where he thinks we might have gone wrong. And for those who may think that the absence of any criticism from other climate centers (who might be finding similar results) is a clear indication that there is a global conspiracy ongoing in climate science, I am not sure what would work best to alleviate such failures of common sense.

Comment on Macchiavelli and Fortuna’s whim by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

ClimateReason, with regard to a five-meter sea-level rise, and assuming unrestricted free-market carbon-burning, here are some no-waffling predictions.

• My personal over-under (that is, 50-50 odds either way) date for a five-meter rise is 2250 AD.

• Hansen asserts “the possibility [not certainty] of a five-meter rise by 2100 or shortly thereafter.” And so, let’s guess Hansen’s over-under date for a five-meter sea-level rise as (very roughly) 2150 AD.

• OK, ClimateReason … what is *YOUR* over-under for a five-meter sea-level rise?

That will be a fun number to see!   :)   :)   :)

Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Brandon Shollenberger

0
0

lolwot:

i am talking about the WUWT/Jo Nova crowed.

Not Steve McIntyre and Steven Mosher

So when everyone else is referring to one group of people, you jump in, quote them, agree with them, but are referring to a different group than them…? I don’t think you’re doing yourself many favors with this defense.

I mean, you just responded to an accusation of saying something stupid by telling us you didn’t mean to say that stupid thing, but rather, meant to say a different stupid thing.


Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :)

0
0

Spart, the models will somewhat agree with climate while the oceans regain energy lost during the equatorial volcanic events. Natural recovery from is virtually indistinguishable from radiant forcing since the model are based on depressed conditions. The models are extremely sensitive to initial conditions because they overestimate the forcing. That is why they have to tweak aerosols, are surprised by the lack of tropical warming and the inconsistent Antarctic responses.

If they properly considered the geometry and used isothermal boundaries they would realize that the low end 1.0 is the approximate answer.

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/envelopes.png

CO2 does have a non-linear impact that is stronger doing cool times and weaker during warm times, it is a thermostat of sorts. It really is one kick butt design for a planet :)

Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Jim Cripwell

0
0

Andy, you write “In one modeling experiment,”

So far as I am concerned, this says it all. Anyone who can write that one can do an “experiment” using a model, clearly does not understand basic physics. This is the main problem with Andy’s whole essay; it seems to assume that the output of non-validated models is the equivalent of empirical, hard, measured, indenpendently replicted data. I have news for Andy. The output of non-validated models – and none of his models have ever been validated – is not the same as measured data and never will be

Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

> I am surprised to see you involved in this sort of guessing game and innuendo (leaker versus hacker of climategate emails). The fact you do participate in this sort of guessing and argument without evidence discredits you and by association, discredits the CAGW alarmists.

Takehome exam:

1. Formulate the principle implicitely set forth in the first sentence.

2. Apply it to the second sentence.

3. Find in Andy Lacis’ comment two pieces of evidence, contradicting the “argument without evidence” jab.

4. Take into consideration the “CAGW alarmists” expression to wonder about Peter Lang’s ideological bias, as he himself did earlier.

5. Ponder upon the conditions to “discredit the CAGW alarmists”, and justify why the label is a slur used to discredit those who do not share Peter Lang’s ideological bias.

Good luck!

Comment on Macchiavelli and Fortuna’s whim by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

k scott denison asks “Please state the time frame during which the earth was is the ‘old normative climate’”

K scott denison, thank you for your question.

With reference to David Good and Rafael Reuveny, “On the Collapse of Historical Civilizations” (American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1998), an appropriate normative period would be the last three doublings of the planetary population [on grounds that this is the climate to which our polulation-carrying institutions are adapted].

And therefore, the answer to your question is this: 1800-2010.

Which matches pretty well to IPCC definitions.

As is plain common sense, eh?

What is your next simple, common-sense question, k scott denison?     :) :) :)

Comment on Macchiavelli and Fortuna’s whim by k scott denison

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images