yes you can estimate the sensitivity to a first order using first principles.
Comment on What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process by Steven Mosher
I have no issue with you kim. you are at least consistent. but david uses the results of radiative physics to argue against radiative physics
↧
Comment on What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process by Steven Mosher
I certainly think they could have worded it better, and I would argue that there is evidence that the models do run a bit hot. There is, you have to admit, evidence of that. whether that is the cause of the difference between observations and models is another matter. But they clearly and objectively run hotter than surface temps.
↧
Comment on What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process by Steven Mosher
Robert, you are over egging the pudding. Evidence indicates that a majority of the warming since MID CENTURY can be explained by anthropogenic forcing. That warming cannot be explained by our current understanding of non anthropogenic forcing. That doesnt amount to proof. Nothing is proved in science.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by Peter Lang
Pekka Pirila,
@ July 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm
You said:
My chair before retirement was on “Energy economics”
I remain very surprised by your statements on previous threads where you argued that fuel taxes could substitute for emissions pricing (carbon tax or ETS). Your comments imply you believe fuel taxes could be an effective alternative to emissions pricing for cutting global GHG emissions.
You said that many economists and authoritative organisations arguing that fuel taxes could do the job instead of emission pricing (carbon tax or ETS).
Well who are they? Can you provide some links? How authoritative are they? Where is this alternative being seriously discussed?
Please don’t obfuscate.
I asked the below questions twice on previous threads, but you did not address them. I am very interested in your reply:
1. What rate of tax will you apply to each fuel?
2. Will they be the same for all users of each fuel
3. Will the taxes be the same in all countries?
4. Will they be implemented at the same time?
5. If not, how will you prevent distortions?
6. If you don’t intend to avoid distortions, how do you intend to resolve conflicts?
7. How will you tax the non fuel emissions?
↧
↧
Comment on Sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer to added longwave radiative forcing by Kristian
“One of the most significant signals in the thermometer-observed temperature record since 1900 is the decrease in the diurnal temperature range over land, largely due to rising of the minimum temperatures.”
I wonder, have they looked at the actual global observations to see how this works? If you check out the evolution in DTR (Tmax – Tmin) from 1950 to 2010 (CRU TS 3.10), you wil see that nothing happens between 1950 and ~1972/73, only fluctuations around a mean value. Then, between ~1973 and 1977/78, a big drop (a step, pretty much), before it all settles again on a new, lower level. DTR does not decrease between 1977/78 and 2010 (during the modern warming, that is). Both Alexander et al. 2006 and the IPCC (AR4) (based on his study) acknowledges this, but neither makes any attempt to answer why.
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/img021c-1.jpg
Source: KNMI Climate Explorer (climexp.knmi.nl)
This peculiar course of events does not exactly point to a greenhouse gas culprit … Rather, I would investigate what happened globally in the mid 70s. Great Pacific Climate Shift, anyone?
↧
Comment on Sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer to added longwave radiative forcing by Pekka Pirilä
What makes you think that I could not accept that. I accept also that there’s an even larger difference in the albedo in areas that are covered by snow in winter but dark in summer. Variability in cloudiness is also an important factor. I do accept that the albedo is very different for different parts of the globe and that these differences vary.
That has little to do with your previous comment. and I wonder why you picked that particular effect among the many causes of variability.
The annual variability and regional differences in albedo are certainly more important for a full analysis than the dependence on the wavelength within the SW spectrum.
↧
Comment on Week in review 7/20/12 by Alexej Buergin
Sounds schizophrenic to me.
↧
Comment on What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process by Girma
Rud Istvan
A well written article.
Thank you.
↧
↧
Comment on Sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer to added longwave radiative forcing by WebHubTelescope
Any of these factors that demonstrate extreme climate sensitivity, such as albedo, will also contribute to potential for positive feedbacks in AGW. The fact skeptics always conveniently ignore this goes to show us how fake they are. Sane goes for climate sensitivity as demonstrated the past thousand years of human records. The http://skepticalscience.com site had a recent commentary on this fundamental observation and how the dirt gets swept under the rug by the fakers.
↧
Comment on What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process by Alexej Buergin
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2012.6/trend
Seems that Jim Cripwell was just 2 years ahead of his time.
↧
Comment on What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process by Alexej Buergin
It is true that DocMartyn calculates from concentration and temperature increasing to c&t increasing instead of equilibrium to equlibrium. But the lag is at the beginning as well as at the end, and that cancels out:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/345.htm
ECS goes from year 0 to year “much later”, but it is the same for year 70 to year 140.
↧
Comment on What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process by WebHubTelescope
Mosh is on the right track, as usual. Compartment or box models that feature any kind of diffusional factor will in general lead to a characteristic lag that has a long tail. What confuses people is that an intial transient often shows up that can mimic a fast exponential decline. The more slab layers that go into the compartment model, the easier it is to see this behavior.
↧
↧
Comment on Sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer to added longwave radiative forcing by Vassily
Web
“Sane goes for [extreme] climate sensitivity as demonstrated the past thousand years of human records. ”
So a thousands years of CO2 and temperature records show extreme sensitivity? Is that for real, or just the usual IPCC/mainstream alarmist fakery?
↧
Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by mikelorrey
There has been no warming in the past 15 years, which contradicts alarmist climate models that have forecast disastrous events, including claims 10 years ago that this summer the arctic would be entirely ice-free.
↧
Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by gbaikie
“If the quality of this Section is representative of rest of the Report, the entire thing can be readily dismissed as amateurish propaganda.”
It was rather short, but whole paper discussing the topic, so just going to section isn’t wise. The entire paper is about global climate change and it’s effect on US. The significant aspect of the Southwest is growing population and with increasing water needs and the region has history droughts. Global change is likely to have much effect upon these periods of droughts, but combine increase water use and future drought, there should concern about improve water management.
↧
Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by Chief Hydrologist
‘Although it has failed to produce its intended impact nevertheless the Kyoto Protocol has performed an important role. That role has been allegorical. Kyoto has permitted different groups to tell different stories about themselves to themselves and to others, often in superficially scientific language. But, as we are increasingly coming to understand, it is often not questions about science that are at stake in these discussions. The culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative is being employed to fight culture wars over competing social and ethical values.’ The Wrong Trousers: Radically Rethinking Climate Policy – http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/mackinderCentre/
I have quoted this several times – including above. Not sure what the difficulty is. We have Bart and Joshua talking about motivated as if this is a new discovery – with Bart at least feeling that the human condition doesn’t apply to him. Joshua accepts intellectually that it applies to him but doesn’t really believe it.
My values have been clearly stated – economic growth, technological innovation, co-operative solutions to managing common pool resources, democracy, free markets, individual freedom and the rule of law. Things that are fundamental enlightenment values fought and bled for, especially by America, over hundreds of years. Clearly there is a clash of culture and ethics here and to miss this aspect of the climate wars is to miss everything that is vital to understanding the social dynamic.
The science is really another thing – and I don’t have any motivation to look at it askance. My solutions remain the same regardless of what science says. Indeed – I made the transition as a hydrologist and environmental scientist from reading AR1 around 1990 and accepting the simple radiative physics involved – to realising that the PDO had exactly the same temporal signature as the hydrological regimes whose cause I was searching for as well as the temporal signature of the trajectories of global temperatures in the 20th century. So this went from a harmless pursuit of hydrological verities to a realisation that things were not quite as simple as first glance would suggest.
I will quote once again from the IPCC 4AR – s 3.4.4.1. ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ It is increasingly clear natural low-frequency variability – indeed chaotic variability – operates at these decadal timescales and that there are mechanisms operating through cloud radiative forcing. One of these mechanisms seems to be related to sea surface temperature in the tropical and sub-tropical Pacific. One of the implications of this is the potential for subdued warming or even cooling over the next decade or 3. The science is nowhere near as simple or clear cut as the cult of AGW space cadets insist.
I have been pondering why a more nuanced picture is not emerging – both in terms of the complexity of science and the plethora of opportunities to address this and many other severe problems facing the world and humanity this century. But I am an engineer and environmental scientist and not a pop psychologist. All I know is that we can agree on ways forward or not. Taxes or caps are anathema to us libertarian types – and seem profoundly immoral to me – but there are many other feasible approaches and we can speak with a single voice to advance these or let the climate wars persist.
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
↧
↧
Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by DocMartyn
I have a really nice example of post-modern science and how it is applicable to limate science
I had a file of GISS that I downloaded at the beginning of 2009. Today I updated it and came up with a gem. I can now observe the difference between the way the field of climate research has changed in only three years.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/HowGISShaschangedin3years.jpg
Note, that post the two versions are base lined in the 1951-1980. period. The difference between the two data sets is that the world has warmed between 1980 and 2008 by an extra 0.0037 degrees per year.
The line shape of the 2012 data minus the 2009 data shows clear man-made global warming. The addition of the slope is so blatant one can see the strings.
How can the field expect to persuade anyone of their integrity when they obviously have none?
↧
Comment on Special issue on postnormal climate science by cui bono
The Libor scandal is part of the ‘post-normal finance’ we’ve had for the past few years.
↧
Comment on Cato’s Impact Assessment by Chief Hydrologist
America has decades of drought to come – as I have said before this most recent manifestation. Expect dust bowl conditions to emerge – and it has nothing to do with AGW.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
