I said not yet and you are citing plans to 2020. We do not disagree.
Comment on Sandy: a wake-up call on our satellite-based weather and climate observing capacity by David Wojick
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Jim Cripwell
Pekka, you write “Science is not done by consensus, but the only proper way something becomes accepted as well established scientific knowledge is consensus of the community of scientists.”
I always had a suspicion that you, Pekka, were so much a believer in CAGW, that it distorts your obvious considerable knowledge of physics. How anyone with your knowledge can write such nonsense, I have no idea. The only basis on which physicists should ever agree that some hypothesis has a sound basis, is the empirical data; nothing else. I dont care what qualifications any group of physicists has, or what appointmnets they may hold; if they dont have the empirical data to support what they claim is true, then there is no basis in physics to believe that it is true. And any group of “physicists” that tries to claim some from of consensus, without adequate empirical data, simply are not physicists.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend. by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4
Chief is not the only one critical of Doug, since he, Postma and his crew use “magic” to dispute the divided by 4 average.
The spherical average, (albedo adjusted solar)/4 is based on equilibrium, Ein=Eout. You can’t disputed that at some point in time Ein=Eout=(solar adjusted)/4 What can be disputed is the time required to establish equilibrium and the time constants for each layer and cross sectional area of the Earth.
GHG theory does not allow for internal energy transfer of time periods longer than 60 years for example. If that is the case, the Ein could be greater than Eout for 30 years then Eout could be greater than Ein for 30 years but over the entire 60 year period, the total Ein would have to equal the total Eout. If Earth can charge,( Ein>Eout) for 1000 years, then Tau or the minimum time constant would be 1000 years for determining (adjusted solar)/4.
Doug does not even come close to conserving energy which would be rule number one.
↧
Comment on Sandy: a wake-up call on our satellite-based weather and climate observing capacity by David Springer
I’m making the point that Obama more than doubled spending on the war in Afghanistan. What part of that don’t you understand?
↧
Comment on The long, slow thaw? by climatereason
Note to self for part two of long slow thaw.
The relative warmth of the climate around 1640 to 1660 approximately that I had expressed some scepticism about appears to be vindicated by glacial records. This records a general retreat approx 1644 to around 1663 or so. They then advanced again for twenty five years or so. Temperatures are not the sole cause of advance and retreat but are obviously a big factor. Sun levels, moisture, cloudiness etc all have a big effect.
See book ‘ times of feast, times of famine’ by Emmanuel le Roy Ladurie Chapter three and chapter four in particular. Gives lots of first hand accounts of glacial advances and retreats mostly but not solely in the alps
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend. by Paul Vaughan
Vukcevic,
I loudly applaud the stimulating observations you bring to the discussion, but I find your interpretations grossly ignorant of basics. You often cite Jean Dickey (NASA JPL), but so far you appear to be completely ignoring her work on thermal wind. This is a fatally serious error.
I recall a recent exchange between you & Bob Tisdale where Bob made the impressive diagnosis that you were misunderstanding the term “teleconnection”. I’m going to suggest here that your glaring ignorance of the elementary concept “thermal wind” may be rooted in a comparable misunderstanding.
My intentions in volunteering these comments are friendly but serious.
Best Regards.
↧
Comment on Sandy: a wake-up call on our satellite-based weather and climate observing capacity by Joe's World(progressive evolution)
Very Cool Chief!!! 
↧
Comment on Hurricane Sandy: Part n by JCH
CH may not believe climate in 2100 can be predicted, but I do not think for one second that is what James C. McWilliams believes, or where his criticism of models should lead.
He sees a problem with the approach of climate modelers, and he offers a solution that employs lots more modeling.
↧
Comment on Sandy: a wake-up call on our satellite-based weather and climate observing capacity by David Springer
David Wojick | November 4, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
“The cities and towns are built in flood plains because that is where the flat ground is. Folks like Gates and Mosher ignore the physics of life, like wishing away fire. Fantasy is easy for them.”
Perhaps more importantly it’s where the arable land is located. The devastation in this case is vastly magnified by the floodwater being saltwater which is conducts electricity far better than fresh water and corrodes metals far more. Arable land is seldom effected by saltwater intrusion because it’s not arable to begin with that close to the ocean due to salt from previous intrusions ruining the soil for agriculture.
Coastal development isn’t there because the land is flat. It’s there because of proximity to the ocean. The reasons range from aesthetic ocean views to fishing and shipping. In the modern world there’s not as much reason for living perilously close to the shore for fishing and shipping purposes. It’s not like the old days when a ten mile hike from hearth to shore would take up the whole day leaving no time to do anything at the shoreline.
↧
↧
Comment on Sandy: a wake-up call on our satellite-based weather and climate observing capacity by JCH
Again, to what Hansen paper are you referring?
You talk as though Hansen invented the pipeline after Trenberth’s public discussion of the missing heat. Is that what you want to say?
Pipelines! Speed bumps! Surely they have a pill for your problem.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Pekka Pirilä
Jim,
You, Terry and everyone else is forced to refer to something that must be interpreted in some way. There are no absolutes in scientific evidence.
When I refer to established scientific knowledge I mean something that has been confirmed often enough to reach a level of certainty that’s stronger than best and statistically most significant experiments can alone produce (there are exceptions where a single experiment may be deemed reliable enough, but that’s exceptional).
What I’m saying that for scientific knowledge there are no authorities above the scientific community. Measuring the level of consensus within the scientific community is difficult, but for well established scientific knowledge measuring not normally needed as it’s existence is so obvious.
I have tried to make it clear that the requirement of consensus in the sense I use the word is very stringent. Such a consensus must be almost unanimous, some scattered contrary opinions don’t change it but they must be a really minimal distraction in the unanimity as they are for typical issues of textbook physics.
When a scientific issue gets as politicized as the questions about climate science have become there is the possibility that a really small minority is loud enough and gets so much support from outside science that unwarranted confusion is created. This observation is relevant for climate science, where many main stream scientists claim that there is a real wide reaching consensus while skeptics claim that that’s not true.
My own view is that there is clearly a strong scientific consensus on many issues of climate science but that there are legitimate questions concerning the coverage of that consensus. I do think that some activist scientists have tried to put the stamp on consensus also on conclusions which are in reality not at all supported by consensus. I*m certainly not the only one wondering where the bordering line might be.
↧
Comment on Sandy: a wake-up call on our satellite-based weather and climate observing capacity by omanuel
Tomorrow is our Presidential election, 6 Nov 2012.
I am not a fortune- teller, but I expect a quantum leap in post-WWII trends after the United Nations was established on 24 Oct 1945:
1. Falsehoods promoted as consensus “settled” science, and
2. Loss of human rights “protected” by the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the US Bill of Rights.
I will post empirical dots on the first trend line later today on my web page, after http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1702
The economist, E. M. Smith, reported the facts about AGW yesterday:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/kyoto-limping-to-an-end/
“The entire structure of Kyoto was a wealth transfer from Rich nations to Poor nations. It was to hobble the west and enrich those invested in the planned money transfer and industrial movement. That game has played out. It’s a done deal.”
AGW was never about global climate. It has now completed its primary mission.
With deep regrets,
- Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
↧
Comment on Sandy: a wake-up call on our satellite-based weather and climate observing capacity by David Springer
Upstate NY contains a lot of farmland. NYC residents are not subsidizing farming so much that they are subsidizing more than their own state gets back. Washington takes a piece of the action of course so it would be better if New York state taxpayers subsidized New York state farms as required and left the federal government out of the equation.
↧
↧
Comment on Sandy: a wake-up call on our satellite-based weather and climate observing capacity by David Springer
“CO2 keeps rising”
Yes the mantra is that even if CO2 stopped rising there is still a lot of heating in the pipeline. That mantra is BS. If CO2 stopped rising the forcing from it would also stop rising and so too would any surface temperature rise. They’re trying to equate the additional forcing with a flame under a pot of water where the temperature will keep rising even if the flame isn’t increasing. That’s not quite true. The water might already be at equilibrium temperature for that level of flame and it will certainly reach equilibrium after some amount of time has passed. Earth’s surface and oceanic mixed layer equilibrates within a few months at most from changes in forcing which is demonstrated in what’s known as seasonal lag.
So the “heating in the pipeline” is really anthropogenic CO2 “in the pipeline” i.e. fossil fuel not yet burned. If it remained unburned then additional warming would not be realized either.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Joe's World(progressive evolution)
Pekka,
Those values are generated strictly for a model and in NO way adjusted to an ACTUAL orb.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Max™
“A reduced rate of cooling for a body (or a system) means a warmer body (or a system). You can warm a room by closing an open window.” ~Edim
You are not raising the temperature with that mechanism, you are reducing the rate at which the temperature decreases.
Your examples regarding your face “warming” due to the presence of a wall is absurdly flawed.
1. It ignores how your body actually detects temperature variations.
2. It is phrased in a vague enough manner that one could erroneously conclude there was an increase in temperature rather than a reduced rate of cooling.
Get an insulated box of some sort with one open side and place a thermometer inside.
Point the open face at a warm surface until the thermometer reads higher than room temperature.
Now open the freezer and perform the experiment you described with your face and the freezer/wall.
Then reset the thermometer to above room temperature and perform the experiment again with the wall.
At no point will the thermometer ever read higher than it did while being heated directly by a radiant source above room temperature.
It should show a lower reading when pointed at the freezer compared to the reading obtained from the wall. This does not mean the wall made the thermometer warmer, as it was only warmer in comparison to the freezer, not the initial conditions.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Pekka Pirilä
That finally matters but concepts can be defined making specific assumptions for various purposes and questions may be asked that have a specific but limited relevance.
One of these questions is, what happens <b>initially</b> referring only to effects that start to develop immediately and linearly in time. Such a question was discussed here. Such questions are often discussed because they can be answered with less information and because answering them may be useful as starting point for further analysis. Two people may also better figure out, how far they agree when they proceed in small steps.
↧
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by captdallas2 0.8 +0.2 or -0.4
Pekka, “Two people may also better figure out, how far they agree when they proceed in small steps.” That is entirely true. So for small steps I have recommended considering CO2 as a point source in a simple model to illustrate the major points. That suggestion is lost in the minutia.
I have recommended using energy envelopes to nest isolated systems to illustrate the major points that needs to be considered. That is lost in the minutia.
I have pointed out not only that K&T miss 18 Wm-2 but where they missed the 18 Wm-2, that is lost in the minutia.
Sometimes it is just best to step back and take a fresh look at the problem.
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by manacker
Fanny
The “age of the universe” has absolutely nothing – nada – rien – zilch – to do with the discussion here.
Nor do the “football games”.
Changing the subject to evade the pain?
Grow up.
Max
↧
Comment on Uncertainty in observations of the Earth’s energy balance by Joe's World(progressive evolution)
Judith,
Funny how you follow the money and it usually leads back to the government. Whether a “independent” company receives subsidies or grants or the researcher.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
