Chris, if we keep adding the same amount of heat per year, we will continue to raise the temperature by that amount per year. Perhaps I’m missing your point
Comment on Congressional Climate Briefing to Push “End of Climate Change Skepticism” by Philip Haddad
↧
↧
Comment on Congressional Climate Briefing to Push “End of Climate Change Skepticism” by Philip Haddad
If radiation prevents any further rise in temperature why are we concerned at all?
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by WebHubTelescope
<blockquote>I have not heard or seen of a statistical treatment such as this and it seems a perfectly understandable and legitimate approach, even at the ‘informed layperson’ level.</blockquote>
These papers are not at the layperson level but are more akin to the way I would think of the problem, and were in fact discovered after I worked out a "layperson treatment" on my blog.
<a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.3118v1.pdf" rel="nofollow">A Stochastic Energy Budget Model Using Physically Based Red Noise</a> 2011
<a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1007/1007.1376v4.pdf" rel="nofollow">Climate tipping as a noisy bifurcation: a predictive technique</a> 2010
These are very far removed from Ludecke's approach but in fact contain the elements needed to reason about stochastic time series, which must first and foremost consider fundamental statistical physics.
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by Tom
NW, Appeal to God? The Bible tells us that He uses earthquakes as a warning of coming judgement. Plot this:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical.php
Maybe it is ‘natural’, you be the judge.
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by curryja
Thanks for these links. I’ve taken a quick look at your post, looks interesting. Interest in a new thread discussing this?
↧
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by Joshua
David -
I have to wonder if your taste in wine is influenced by confirmation bias. Statistics would suggest that it is:
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/11/the_subjectivity_of_wine.php
That said, if I manage to mind my p’s and q’s, the next time I’m in Seattle I’ll see if you want to have an opportunity to prove that your conclusions with wine are more carefully considered than your conclusions about Fred’s reasoning.
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by Chris Ho-Stuart
They <i>have</i> all been assessed. Which one of those do you think is not sufficiently well assessed so as to leave the matter of the major source of recent warming unclear? That's a serious question, by the way; I'm genuinely curious which of those you think might still reasonably be the basis of some alternative to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by Big Oyl
“This is the sort of confusion you expect when your primary source material is “john-daly.com” rather than the actual scientific papers being discussed, as well as the discussions of those papers in meetings or in subsequent literature.”
- pretentious hipster
↧
Comment on Slaying a greenhouse dragon by Bill Smith
Mr. Skolnick you are some kind of a Stalker. When a person spends vast amounts of time tracking and following a single person and then hurling vast amounts of puss and vitriol at that person they are a stalker. We are interested in the message really and not your personal vendetta against one of the messengers. Unless you can refute the story and address your remarks to that, you come over as some kind of a nutcase yourself.
↧
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by Girma
Fred
Here is an example.
The physical explanation based on ocean heat content and the negative constraints imposed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law (precluding runaway type climate feedbacks) is what shows the role of natural fluctuations to be no more than minor (at least for the 1956-2005 interval).
You claimed “the role of natural fluctuations to be no more than minor”. This is just a claim. There is no evidence for your claim. It is just story telling.
Fred, is not the “natural fluctuation” described in the following paper major?
↧
Comment on Disinformation vs fraud in the climate debate by gbaikie
“But let me try an experiment re your comment:
There is a great resource for long lists of papers under various sub-topics to do with climate change. Here it is;
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/index/
What do you think?”
I bookmarked it.
In a brief amount of time I haven’t found anything as yet which I would call a resource.
Unless it’s resource for particular type humor. E.g.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.4988v1.pdf
Which to be precise, is a farce.
Also this is a resource for students to spot disinformation.
I find it’s format enjoyable.
And yes, the abstract is a summary of this “paper”.
A bit from abstract ” Our purpose is to try to understand the story which the climatologists are telling us through their rather complicated general circulation models”
And this from the body:
“We assume that the atmosphere equalises the temperature so that the absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin is roughly uniform over the globe.”
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by Girma
Fred
I agree that you are an excellent story teller.
However, regarding AGW, the story may be wrong.
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by David Young
I know its subjective, but Wine Spectator in my experience is trustworthy, more trustworthy than the climate science literature. Fred might not fare too well though because I would also invite my physicists friends who are more knowledgiable about physics but who realize that science advances through skepticism. Good night
↧
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by stefanthedenier
Would the climate stopped changing, if it wasn’t any industrial revolution? Overpopulation will destroy everything green in nature, not CO2. Before 1850′s CO2 in the air was to criticality low level, for healthy vegetation. Vegetation is made of CO2; the more of it – the better and more prosperous trees / crops. It’s too obvious than, all of the carbon molesters are avoiding the real problems of overpopulation, why?
Without fossil fuel, earth can sustain 1,5 billion people – have they decided what to do with the other 5 billion?
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by Alex Heyworth
Martha, for Pete’s sake, just write your own paper.
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by Girma
More recently, people like Manabe, James Hansen, Wally Broecker (who coined the term “global warming”) have positioned themselves into the future history books.
Into the history books for the wrong predictions!
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by Peter Davies
Tomas, your comments are appreciated, even if my lack of background in dynamical systems has left me unclear as to the basis of some of your conclusions.
My intuition tells me that the study of chaotic systems should be based on the application of more generalised laws of physics applying equivalently to smaller scale sub-atomic particles and macro-scale weather/climate systems.
I agree, that a great need exists for more resources be allocated to the development of theories and hypotheses in climate science and feel further that climate science itself is in need of strengthening.
↧
↧
Comment on Ludecke et al. respond: Part II by Peter Davies
Indeed. Humans are as natural as any other organisism. Sure we are more powerful and can do a lot of damage to the environment but it is still natural!
↧
Comment on Heresy and the creation of monsters by Chad Wozniak
Dear Judith:
Thanks for fighting the good fight against dogma and political propaganda in science, and expopsing the errors of the GHG scaremongers as you have.
Again the bottom line is that the human role in carbon dioxide activity is infinitesimal compared even to such unsuspected contributors to CO2 in the atmosphere as animal respiration (30 to 60 times as much as fossil fuel burning, and that’s only one tiny part of naturally produced CO2 – human breathing alone accounts for a substantial portion of CO2 emitted, and is in turn a tiny percentage of the total emissions from animal respiration).
And the impact of CO2 on climate is iinfinitesimal compared to solar luminosity, the rate of heat transfer from the earth’s interior, and above all the role of water vapor, which constitutes anywhere from 30 to 140 times as much of the atmosphere as CO2 (and if anyone doesn’t think H2O is a heat trap, why does 100 degrees feel so much hotter at 90 percent humidity than it does at 10 percent humidity?)
The anthropogenic climate change theory can be blown completely out of the water by some very simple observations and even simpler arithmetic. The GHG scaremongers are twice wrong – dead wrong about the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, and just as wrong about the effect of CO2 on climate.
And one should not forget the bullying tactics engaged in by the GHG scaremongers — everything from blocking puplication of skeptical scientific papers to shouting down skeptics at conferences to actual threats of bodily harm to skeptics. Those sorts of tactics are pretty good evidence that these people are acting on political agendas and know fulkl well their “science” is garbage. And there is the unbelievable hypocrisy and effrontery of Al Gore whining about oh, the poor folk in Third World countries and criticizing John Q. Public for driving an SUV, while he consumes 10 times as much electricity in his house (most of it from coal-fired power plants!) as the average American household, and flies hither and yon in a private Boeing 727 — while crying all the way to the bank with the millions he is making by profiteering from people’s fears.
↧
Comment on Proc. Roy. Soc. Special Issue on ‘Handling Uncertainty in Science’ by gbaikie
“Without fossil fuel, earth can sustain 1,5 billion people – have they decided what to do with the other 5 billion?”
I wonder if that is correct. I wonder what max pop the world could have
without fossil fuels.
I would say right off that there is enormous amount waste in government.
To get rid of fossil fuel could get rid of a lot government- the government workforce simply could not be afforded.
Though it’s possible that would a bigger military force.
But such military could be composed of mostly or partially with private militant groups. You could what is known loosely as a police state.
Or different way to say this is the government role could be limited to security concerns.
One might look at modern countries which have low GDP.
Half the world is poor today. And unlike poor in poor US, the world’s poor can’t afford fossil fuels.
“Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.”
So mostly these 3 billion people aren’t currently using much fossil fuels,
though doubt they maybe assisted in various ways which involve fossil fuel use.
But as saying above, it’s unlikely these 3 billion are doing much to support a government.
I think it might possible to have much higher populations without fossil fuel. But most people would farmers and labors and life would shorter and a lot less comfortable.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
