Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148452 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Reflections on the Arctic sea ice minimum: Part I by BBD

$
0
0

captdallas

Assertions, hand-waving, ‘black arts’ and home-made graphs. I’ll leave you to your fun. I don’t begrudge you your views, but do not expect to be taken seriously. No further comment.

Steven

I see we’ve hit the wall of denial. I can’t say I didn’t expect it, but I’m not pushing the rock any further up the endless hill. I will say that the exact point I gave up on you was when you tried to turn some uncertainty about the ARGO/XBT splice into an invalidation of the universally-accepted fact that global OHC is rising.

I know why you had to do that, and so do you, in your heart of hearts.


Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Jim Cripwell

$
0
0

VTG yoo write “Does that seem likely to you?”

I do wish people would quote what I write. I NEVER said that the value for climate sensitivity of CO2 was zero. I said it was INDISTINGUISHABLE from zero. These are completely different statements.

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Dave

$
0
0

BEST reproduced the surface temperatures (and its great that they did this). Although they tried to claim otherwise, they had little to say about attribution (even Mann hated this).

Regarding the IPCC, in response to your question, I don’t find it convincing. Showing Hockey Sticks based on poor statistical analyses, and cutting out adverse data, isn’t impressive in the slightest. As a scientist I’m appalled by this. Furthermore, the job of the IPCC is to provide a summary of existing literature. I’m proposing a complete reproduction of key results using the best statistical techniques etc. We are constantly told that this is a major problem for mankind. The costs involved in independently reproducing the results with a group of top scientists who have no “dog in the fight” are minimal. I’m surprised that there is little support for this from CAGW-believers. After all, its not as if you’re winning the argument when it comes to public opinion.

Regarding your comment..
“Because nifty as testing theories sounds, I remain skeptical of the ardor for resolution embodied in your comment. It sounds like you really don’t want to know, and want your unknowing handed to you on a silver platter.”

I’m not sure how to react to that. I’ve just finished a submission of a research article to a journal today and spent a little time earlier today teaching students how to conduct experiments and avoid biases when studying data. Yet you think I don’t want to know…Finding out things through experiment is my job. I made my proposal because I *want* to know – its just that I’m not sure whether to trust the information being given to me. If that annoys you then write to certain climate scientists and tell them to admit in public that, eg, many of the historical temperature reconstructions are flawed and that, shock horror, a Canadian mining engineer was right. Paradoxically, you might find their credibility when putting forward other climate-related research *increases*. Arguing that black is white only works on a blind man.

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by MattStat/MatthewRMarler

$
0
0

VeryTallGuy: think about it, if climate sensitivity were zero, that would mean that turning off the sun had no effect on the earth’s temperature.

That’s only true if the climate sensitivity is constant, independent of the state of the climate. It could be the case that, starting now, doubling of the CO2 would produce no net change in the distribution of rainfall and temperature; or perhaps a change in spatial distribution without a net increase in the global means. The proposition of a constant climate sensitivity only applies to an extremely simple model of climate.

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by willard (@nevaudit)

$
0
0

Manacker,

You claim to have made specific arguments according to which:

> 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.

I’m not sure where are these specific arguments.

Nor if these specific arguments lead to this conclusion.

Nor if this conclusion has any relevance whatsoever the price of tea.

Nor it this conclusion has any meaning, really.

Could you state these (note the plural) arguments (note the function) and the way we can infer (note the reasoning step) in a way that we can understand both the meaning and the relevance of your conclusion?

Many thanks!

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Spence_UK

$
0
0
Peter, in short, the consequences of T2xCO2 could happen even without the 2xCO2. Basically on the timescales of interest, natural variability swamps the anthropogenic input. I frequently quote Dr Timothy Cohn in his paper, "Nature's Style: Naturally Trendy" (<a href="http://water.usgs.gov/osw/pubs/Naturally_Trendy-Cohn-Lins_GRL_2005.pdf" rel="nofollow">link</a>): <blockquote>Finally, that reported trends are real yet insignificant indicates a worrisome possibility: natural climatic excursions may be much larger than we imagine. So large, perhaps, that they render insignificant the changes, human-induced or otherwise, observed during the past century.</blockquote> Policy is subjective so I don't take a strong view on it. I would guess that adaptation over mitigation would make more sense, but different people can reasonably draw different conclusions on policy.

Comment on National Strategy for Advancing Climate Models by Volker Doormann

$
0
0

The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) has just released a new study under the auspices of BASC that takes on the challenge of A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling . Here is a summary of the recommendations: 1. … 9.

What are some other sources of improvements?

As it is easy to recognize from UAH satellite temperature measurements, where the temperature anomalies of the NH and the SH are correlating in the oscillations, climate is not a national matter, but a global matter, and it is a global matter of science and physics. Physicians do know that a simple model of heat current needs a heat source that produce the measured – mostly phase coherent – global temperature oscillations of frequencies of month, years, decades and centuries. The model has to calculate that heat power spectrum that results in temperature values as measured. Because a heat, driving a heat current, comes not out of nothing, it seems that the Sun is the driver of the heat current.
The problem with recommendations of a national strategy is that i.) it is politics but not science, and that ii.) global climate cannot be separated from the terrestrial heat source, the Sun and the dynamic solar system, and iii.) that no (national) democratic strategy and it’s work solve any scientific challenge of the global climate nature, moreover iv.) it blocks the work of climate science, because scientist make politics work, and v.) they do not really look for new aspects in heliocentric climate science.

New aspects in climate science – and ignored since two years by the modellers of climate – are correlations between solar tide like synodic frequencies and the measured global temperatures:

http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_temp_4_r_11.gif

s.a. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/volker-doormann-graph-links-and/

for more details of the new aspect.

V.

Comment on Uncertainty in health impacts of climate change by Beth Cooper

$
0
0

‘Projections of health risks of climate change are surrounded with uncertainties in knowledge.’ (Wardekker et al) So what do you do ‘when the facts are uncertain, values in dispute,stakes are high and decisions are urgent?’ (Ravetz.)

Well, seems ter me, that given that the facts are uncertain, how can we say fer sure that decisions are urgent or that if we make decisions they’ll be the right ones fer a black swan event? Several denizens here have pointed out we’re at the high end of the interglacial and climate change could well mean a transition into an ice age. Temperature charts and CO2 emission graphs are not in sync … seems like its not easy predicting future climate.

Stakes are high? Hmm, sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease? Exchanging efficient energy sources fer costly, inefficient and intermittant renewables affects people’s livelihoods and productivity. And how “bad’ would be global warming of a possible couple of degrees anyway? Say, cold can be pretty “bad’ for human communities. Paleo- history – records periods of climate deterioration in the Middle Ages, between the 4th and 8th centuries and particularly The Black Death of 1348/9 paint a bleak picture of societies decimated by famine and plague. The period after The Black Death saw social upheaval in France and Flanders and The Peasants’ Revolt in England.
(The Oxford History of Medieval Europe edit G Holmes.)

Human distress took many forms. H Zisser in ‘Rats, Lice and History’ mentions epidemics of dancing mania in the Middle Ages, common after The Black Death, known as St John’s dance, St Vitas’ dance, which appeared not to be diseases of the nervous system but rather,
‘mass hysteria brought about by terror and despair in populations oppressed, famished and wretched to a degree almost unimaginable today.’

The last European famine since the Industrial Revolution was, I believe, the Irish potato Famine of 1845, a cool, wet summer in Ireland. Since then, despite Erlich’s predictions industrial high tech nations have been able to keep food production in step with population growth.

So what about future insurance?. If we don’t know where we’re heading with the great climate seesaw, what can we do ter give us the best odds of dealing with whatever unknown challenges the climate throws at us?
Should we rely on central committee high – tax – outlay 5 year plans and 10 year plans, based on uncertainty? … Or should we should we promote and encourage free market innovation and enterprise, restricting government taxes ter fostering education and basics that government does best. Amen.


Comment on Uncertainty in health impacts of climate change by Bad Andrew

$
0
0

Thanks, John. I knew based on the author that I would not get very far if I read the link, and I was right.

“1. Facts are uncertain.”

Facts are things that are established. They are not uncertain.

A string of characters arranged into nonsense. I’m sorry I wasted my time.

Andrew

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Robert

$
0
0

Peter’s still to scared to answer the question.

What is your definition of “catastrophic,” Peter?

You don’t know, do you?

Are you such a coward that you can’t define your terms, fearful of how easily your arguments can then be shredded?

Why don’t you face your fear and answer the question?

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Robert

$
0
0

Wow, you’re pathetic.

Too scared to say what you mean by “catastrophic.”

Ignoring repeated questions to that effect.

And from your hiding place, you accuse others of ignoring you.

Funny! :)

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Robert

$
0
0

Like many Americans, you should really start eating better.

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by Spence_UK

$
0
0
While this has become a popular meme in climate science today, no such distinction exists between weather and climate. Way back in 1969, Benoit Mandelbrot took a look at this problem and concluded the distinction between weather and climate was merely one of convenience from a human perspective, and had no physical basis. (See chapter on "Significance of Hurst's law in geophysics", from pg 555, of "Global Dependence in Geophysics" at this <a href="http://users.math.yale.edu/mandelbrot/web_pdfs/056geophysicalRecords.pdf" rel="nofollow">link</a>) For what you say to be true, weather would need to be a Markov process with a time constant close to the weather scale; such a thing would be highly visible in plots of power spectral density, etc. As Mandelbrot correctly noted, no such artefact exists. I have seen no counter to Mandelbrot's arguments that rise above hand-waving. (That doesn't mean evidence doesn't exist, and as ever I'd be happy to be presented with evidence that Mandelbrot was wrong)

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on PBS Ombudsman by James Sexton

$
0
0

Oh, okay, so you actually had nothing. Why didn’t you just say so? Personally, I think you’re off your rocker if you think skepticism is done. It’s all but won. Because, like you said, nature won’t be fooled. 30 years of doom and gloom and ……… nothing. No increase in flooding, no increase in droughts, a decrease in ACE, a decrease in strong tornadoes, sea level measurements are in a laughable state, temps aren’t responding to polar amplification nor accelerating CO2 emissions regardless if you think they are accurate or not. Well, I could go on, but I think it’s clear to most rational people that the hyperbole stated in the last couple of decades was entirely overstated. The fact is no one is buying all of the bedwetting about the climate anymore. The market saturation point was reached years ago, and some people, that’s all they’ve ever heard their entire lives and still nothing.

Climate change denialism….. funny, skeptics have always stated that the climate changes.


Comment on PBS Ombudsman by pokerguy

$
0
0

“theduke” wrote “The outrage directed at PBS over this is nothing more than a contemporary version of bookburning..”

Couldn’t agree more. The next thing, now that they’ve tried pathologizing
skepticism, will bean attempt to criminalize it. Of course the presumption in our democratic country is that the climate debate will be resolved peacefully. I think this is far from guaranteed.

Comment on PBS Ombudsman by lolwot

$
0
0

You already issued a press release for the paper.

You know full well that if a climate scientist had issued such a sensationalist press release for a paper that was found to contain serious errors, Watts and co would have criticized them to high heaven and demanded a retraction.

So where’s YOUR retraction?

Comment on Skeptics: make your best case. Part II by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

” Damnedest thing ya ever seen!”

Cap’n, you don’t actually see these things. You either infer them, or in your case, you dream them up in some sort of delusional dream state.

Comment on PBS Ombudsman by lolwot

Comment on Workshop on attribution of extreme events by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

‘The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).’ http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Cloud albedo

Viewing all 148452 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images