Fan,
Its a load of BS from Hansen and the likes. They are science and energy naive.
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by SamNC
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Agnostic
Peter, I thought this was an excellent and well reasoned post. Food for further thought.
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I by steven
There is still a huge problem with the claim that it was energy redistribution and the difference was small. You don’t compare with a flat trend when the trend was obviously towards a warmer Earth. The only appropriate way to even begin to decide how much was due to energy redistribution is how much the SH cooled once the NH began to warm. You may be able to claim some small percentage was redistribution.
File:Epica-vostok-grip-40kyr.png – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I by steven
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by SamNC
Jim,
You don’t know CO2 physical properties and fall into the trap of climate modeling result BS.
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by manacker
[reposted with corrected formatting]
Bart R
You mention weather balloons and NASA measurements, but this line of argumentation gets you on a “slippery slope”.
IPCC AR4 Ch.8, p.632 tells us:
In GCMs, water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback(see Section 8.6.2.3): alone it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases).
And
Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapor remains at an approximately constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity [RH] under global scale warming.
IOW IPCC model-based water vapor feedback estimates are based on the premise that total water vapor content (specific humidity) will rise with temperature to essentially maintain constant relative humidity, and that this will roughly double the 2xCO2 warming response.
Oh, if life were only as simple as the hypothesis!
NASA-NOAA measurements made from those “weather balloons” you are touting go back to 1948. These show “short-term blips” where tropospheric water vapor content (specific humidity) does rise and fall with temperature, but the long-term trend shows just the opposite
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3606945645_3450dc4e6f_b.jpg
IOW, total water vapor content (specific humidity) has decreased as temperature has increased, indicating a counterintuitive negative long-term water vapor feedback. Is this observed phenomenon due to some “natural thermostat” (possibly from clouds), which counteracts the short-term warming effect of added water vapor content?
Even the measured “short term blips” don’t march in lockstep with the “constant relative humidity” premise of the IPCC models.
Minschwaner + Dessler (2004) made such actual measurements over a short time period and concluded:
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
However, the increase in mixing ratio is not as large as the increase in saturation mixing ratio due to warmer environmental temperatures, so that relative humidity decreases.
And
The analysis suggests that models that maintain a fixed relative humidity above 250mb are likely overestimating the contribution made by these levels to water vapor feedback.
OK. SoIPCC has overstated (or exaggerated) the impact of water vapor feedback in its estimate that this feedback almost doubles the 2xCO2 warming response.
But how large was this discrepancy?
”A picture is always worth a thousand words”, as they say.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3347/3610454667_9ac0b7773f_b.jpg
Figure 7 of the M+D report shows the magnitude of the discrepancy. The IPCC model assumption of constant tropospheric relative humidity results is a hypothetical increase of 26 ppmv water vapor per 1°C warming, while the actually observed range was 1.5 to 4 ppmv – an exaggeration by IPCC of “water vapor feedback” by a factor of 6.5X to 17.3X.
Ouch!
So, Bart, it’s clear that both the long-term and short-term physical observations that have been made (by weather balloons and satellites) show that IPCC’s model-based estimates on water vapor feedback are greatly exaggerated.
Max
↧
Comment on BS detectors by Glenn Tamblyn
Max_OK
“Burt Rutan becomes aware of the government conspiracy.”
Which government Max? Somalia, Sweden, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Switzerland, Soutj Korea.
Or are you just referring to the American myopia that thinks the world just consists of the lower 48. That towering aspect of the American psyche; narrow parochialism..
So lets say, just for the sake of argument that there is a US government conspiracy about this. Can you explain to me why Dwight D Eisenhower started this conspiracy? Because the conspiracy most certainly started in the 50′s and was centered primarily on Cold-War era Defence scientists.
With the Cold War in full swing, with fears of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, the scary ‘duck & cover’ advertisments on TV, exactly why did Ike feel he needed or wanted to institute a secret government conspiracy around climate change? This is the same Ike who warned us of the dangers of the Military-Industrial Complex. Why did Ike start the conspiracy Max, that has lasted for 2 generations?
Exhibit 1. A scientific paper called: “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change” – rather telling name there. Published in the journal TELLUS in 1956. Author, Gilbert Plass, a physicist who also worked on things like missile guidance systems. This conspiracy started before I was born Max, and I ain’t no spring chicken any more.
Is that what you think? That while fighting the Cold War, a Presidential assasination, the civil rights movement, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, the campaign for racial equality etc, the US government on both sides, the Presidency, the Congress and the Judiciary – and the Military – all signed off on this conspiracy. Republicans & Democrats over the years signed off on it. Reagan signed off on it. Through the 60′s and beyond they got other governments around the world to sign off on it.
All because Ike thought it was a good idea to put another issue on the table – a rather crowded table? In the middle of all the ferment of the mid 20′th century they started a conspiracy because it might be useful 1/2 a century later.
Is that what you, and presumably Burt really think? Really!
Really?
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by SamNC
A load of CO2 BS. Don’t waste your time.
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by willard (@nevaudit)
Shiv,
> You state the “understanding” (axiom as implied by you) that “shorter periods than 17 years” (call it variable P) “are inadequate” “for any sort of trendology” [whatever that means, call it variable Q].
P and Q are propositions. If they are to be variables, they should be propositional variables. That means there is one and only one proposition there:
(P) Shorter periods than 17 years are inadequate for any sort of trendology.
The emphasis is there to show the important part of propositions.
There seems to be a confusion between propositions and predicates in your analysis.
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Chief Hydrologist asserts “There are no satellites at the Lagrange point. Never will be.”
Chief, the complete confidence of that assertion strikingly contrasts with its utter ignorance of past, present, and future satellite missions to the Lagrange points.
Usually, this level of confidently-expressed ignorance would be enough to win Climate Etc’s Dunning-Kruger Prize-of-the-Week, however David Springer’s heat-balance and American-history fantasies have already claimed this week’s Dunning-Kruger honors. 
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by DocMartyn
You are the principle reason I don’t bother with this forum any more. You completely destroy threads and arguments.
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Tomas Milanovic asserts “A high-dimensional non-linear dissipative system, even with constant input, can not be assumed even to have an equilibrium, or a steady state, or even a stationary distribution.”
Uhhh … someone forgot to tell Boeing and Airbus, eh?
Because airflow over an aircraft on final approach is fully turbulent, yet the flight-path is accurately predictable … fortunately!
Tomas, the sole reason your has not won this week’s Climate Etc Dunning-Kruger Prize, is that Chief Hydrologist and David Springer have already posted even stronger entries!
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by curryja
Nope Fan, I think you you just won it with your post. Tomas Milanovic is one of the relatively few people here who actually knows what he is talking about.
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by John Morland
Tempterrain
I am using David Springer’s reply button (David, my apologies!) to repond to your comments above. Yes, the stratosphere gets warmer, this is a new ball game – where ozine (o3) absorbing UV radiation turning into O atoms. This is outside the parameters under discussion which is like with like (Venus v Earth). Venus does not have ozone in its upper atmosphere.
As to yout comments if the atmosphere i totaly transparent (ie no greenhouse) then I doubt it would matter what pressure the atmosphere is. This whole warming only happens if there is some (even small) greenhouse effect. Once that has been established then pressure/temperature is game on in the solar powered system. If there is NO greenhouse then the whole thing becomes like your tyre. Conversely if there is more greenhouse effect (eg CO2 atmosphere) there would not be much change in temperature.
As to whether this hypothetical atmosphere have an adiabatic lapse rate or be isothermic – I agree with you (and Pekka), it would be isothermal.
↧
Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part II by David L. Hagen
Antarctic Ice Area Sets Record High
“Day 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years ago” the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition announced today. “It is also the fifth highest daily value on record.”
Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, says the most remarkable aspect is the extent to which the 2012 area exceeds normal Antarctica averages. “The sea ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square kilometres above the 1979-2012 average. The surplus ice is more than twice the area of New Zealand”. . . .
“Antarctic ice is much more important than that of the Arctic. The area of its sea ice is a million square kilometres larger than the highest value ever recorded in the Arctic. Then, of course, the Antarctic is an entire continent, with more than 90% of the earth’s glacial ice” said Mr Brill.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by manacker
Bart R
You cite a so-called “refutation” of a book written by Roy Spencer.
Huh?
What in hell has that got to do with what we are discussing here?
[I'll answer that one for you: nothing, nada, zilch, rien.]
Refute (if you can) the specific arguments I made that the model-based strongly positive feedbacks postulated by IPCC from clouds and water vapor (leading to a 2 to 4-fold increase in 2xCO2 “climate sensitivity”) are not supported by empirical scientific data.
That’s what you should try to refute, Bart.
All you’ve got to do is cite the empirical evidence supporting the IPCC feedback assumptions. That’s all.
Try again…
Max
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Girma
I agree.
But because of the accelerated CO2 concentration after 1970s the AGW camp assume there is a corresponding acceleration in the trend after 1970.
I believe there was no shift in the warming trend after 1970. I believe the warming from 1970-200 is mainly due to the warming phase of the Multidecadal oscillation and when this oscillation moves into its cooling phase this warming trend of 0.16 deg C per decade will reduce to the long-term trend of 0.06 deg C per decade.
↧
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Arfur Bryant
Thanks SamNC,
What I was trying to say (most inarticulately) was that only 0.04% is classed as ‘anthropogenic gasses’, as the IPCC does not include water vapour in its list of anthropogenic radiative factors (see AR4-wg1-Ch 2 p135/136). I agree that the percentage of the 400ppm which is attributable to anthropogenic reasons is relatively small, although maybe not as small as 0.04%!
Regards,
↧
Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by JCH
Girma, from the paper:
<i>[12] The quasi-periodic nature of the model’s AMO suggests that in the absence of external forcings at least, there is some predictability of the THC, AMO and global and Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures for several decades into the future. <strong>We utilise this to forecast decreasing THC strength in the next few decades. This natural reduction would accelerate anticipated anthropogenic THC weakening, and the associated AMO change would partially offset expected Northern Hemisphere warming.</strong> This effect needs to be taken into account in producing more realistic predictions of future climate change.</i>
First, Mann has hinted on RC that he intends to do a RC article on the AMO and the PDO, which I wish he would get done.
But, partially offsetting NH warming is not going to flatten the 30-year trend.
When Keenlyside et al predicted cooling, the RC team immediately bet them a lot of money they were wrong.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in health impacts of climate change by MattStat/MatthewRMarler
Robert: It’s interesting that deniers project “anxiety” onto pro-science folks. Yet science denial at its core comes from people so afraid of the reality of the physical world that they cannot face it. And many deniers exhibit outright paranoid delusions about world government, conspiracies of scientists, manipulation by “powerful banking families,” and economic catastrophe should society dare to tax carbon emissions.
Do you have evidence for any of that?
Consider for example your use of the psychoanalytic word “projection”: James Hansen has publicly and frequently announced his fear for the future climate his grandchildren my have to endure; an unconscious motive by everyone else to attribute this to him is totally unnecessary. Similar comments apply to the persistent gloom and doom of Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren.
Efforts of “world government”, conspiracies of scientists, economic harm (if not outright catastrophe) are not far-fetched: there is evidence for all of them.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
