It would be better to actually increase tropospheric aerosols?
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on Epidemic of false claims by Eli Rabett
Even better, scientific codes are being reprogrammed for NVIDA Tesla Graphics Processing Units.
↧
Comment on Macchiavelli and Fortuna’s whim by climatereason
Fan
Nice try at an assumptive close, I never said anything about believing in a five metre rise.
Jch is right about computer modelling. Coincidentally the met office advertised for such a modeller several years ago saying they had no real idea of what ice melt would do to sea levels.
I am gathering information for my arctic ice article and have some 500 papers on the subject. This will in turn give a better idea on likely sea level changes from the roman period where my last article concluded. That assumes there is some sort of link between arctic warming and cooling and sea level change, and perhaps some idea of time scales.
When I have done all that I will be able to trace sea level changes to the present day, set it against known past temperatures and perhaps I might feel able to make a prediction. However I have had to dismiss my large research team as the huge cheque from big oil stubbornly refuses to arrive so don’t hold your breath. 
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by hunter
Relying on the either/or defense that either the consensus is correct or else it is a worldwide conspiracy is a manifestation of how ill-informed and manipulative your posture truly is.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by Herman Alexander Pope
When we have cold and snow events next winter, like there were in the past two winters, they will not find these cold and snow events as remarkable as the warm events that support their alarmist claims that bring money to the alternate energy that does not help.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by pokerguy
For those who need a splash of cold water to douse their AGW fever dreams, I urge you to look at the current map of global temperatures.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by pokerguy
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Robert
David, you seem to not understand physics very well.
Have you studied the subject in a formal setting?
↧
Comment on What global warming looks like (?) by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :)
Pekka,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PBLimage.jpg
That is an image of the planetary boundary layer. The base of the clouds start at a point where the condensation begins. That is a stratified layer in a static model that would vary dynamically. The -1.9C moisture boundary layer ensures that most condensation has occurred and that radiant heat transfer is beginning to become significant.
You could use potential temperature to define a layer it really is only a reference, but -1.9C makes more sense that just picking a number.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Websterscartoon.png
Here I just defined my boundaries.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/MBLmodelversusAQUASSTandCh-6.png
Here I used those boundaries to estimate the energy imbalance, which is approaching zero.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/whatsnormal.png
Which you can compare to SST and see they are approaching a stable temperature for this conditional energy state.
The ocean layers are better stratified in the technical sense, the atmosphere though would be stratified under ideal conditions. I use the ideal to weed out the chaos. Simplification is much better than complication, though complicated is better for job security
↧
↧
Comment on What global warming looks like (?) by Pekka Pirilä
Yes, there is a level where condensation begins, but that does not mean that there’s stratification as there is a continuous convection across that level. The air is moving vertically all the time, only the level stays more or less constant where the condensation begins in the rising air.
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Robert
“You did not answer the question I put to you: what do YOU mean by catastrophic?”
Peter, you introduced the term “catastrophic,” and now you are hiding from your obligation to define.
The real definition is simple enough: AGW denialism has failed. AGW is a proven fact. So deniers have created an imaginary theory, purely of their own creation, “CAGW,” in order to have a straw man.
Every time you invoke your pretend theory of “CAGW,” what you are saying is “AGW is a proven fact; I need to invent something else in order to have some slim chance of winning an argument.”
↧
Comment on What global warming looks like (?) by capt. dallas 0.8 +/-0.2 per doubling maybe :)
Pekka, I have to work on you conceptualization. If it was not for WEATHER, the layers would be STRATIFIED. The layers are references to be used to filter out the weather. This is the all models are wrong, but some useful, concept. The model is useful as a reference.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by P.E.
Weather isn’t climate except when it’s hot somewhere. Especially somewhere crawling with activists, bureaucrats, and politicians.
And yes, I’m enjoying the schadenfreude from watching their electric grid fall apart.
↧
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Robert
“Thank you for your reply and thank you for stating your area of expertise.”
With admirable humility, especially given that Peter’s area of expertise is “nothing.”
Peter, your lack of knowledge of economics does not in any way make up for your lack of knowledge of the hard sciences.
If you want us to take your “argument” against the extensive literature on the economic impacts of unchecked fossil fuel emissions, you have only to publish your critique in a peer-reviewed journal.
By your definition, all your arguments are arguments from authority, and very poorly constructed, at that.
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Tomcat
Robert
CAGW is far from proven, and even AGW still just a guess. Even a blinkered,corrupt and one-sided political advocacy group like the IPCC still only says it’s “likely”.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by Wagathon
Weather brings to mind climate. Ok, sounds reasonable. One man’s fair weather can be another man’s fearful climate so it is impossible to separate the two or eliminate reasoned thought and superstition about either.
Our dilemma is that modern government is much like old religeon that is proactively engaged in fanning of superstition as a means to greater power over the productive by appealing to the fears of the ignorant. You don’t need a weatherman to understand the politics of climate change.
↧
Comment on Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster by Vassily
Poor little Robert .. in his militant ignorance, he still seriously thinks journal articles alleging catastrophic economic damage – the CAGW without which political interference would have no justification, and the idea he lacks the honesty to admit to believing in – are anything but politically-funded arguments for more politics.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by brian
Archiving is important, and it seems like the Thompsons are in fact archiving their data. Not only for their own use, but it is publicly available on their institute’s website: http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/
It took about 15 seconds for me to find that link and download a random delta-18O file from a Peruvian glacier.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by Brandon Shollenberger
That article includes a quote of the sort that should never get printed, but always does:
“At least 15 climate scientists told the Associated Press that this long hot US summer is consistent with what is to be expected in global warming.”
Quotes like this are deceptive. “[T]his long hot US summer” is consistent with a planet without global warming. Do you see that get said or quoted? No. Instead, a true, but meaningless statement gets promoted in a way which implies it says far more than it actually does.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/6/12 by pokerguy
Interesting, because I didn’t think of it that way. Although, now that I cogitate on the matter, if he had only sold his child, it would have been as funny. ON the other hand, if he sold say, “all 6 of his children,” now I’m laughing again.
↧
