BBD | November 14, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Reply
“A CS of ~1C is INCOMPATIBLE with known climate behaviour”
It’s quite compatible. Pretty much the no-feedback scenario. Cloud feedback is negative. You should start getting used to the idea.
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by David Springer
What are some of things on the raft of things that don’t make sense in light of 1C sensitivity?
Speak right up. There’s a bunch of us would like to know.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Edim
Obama wants to reduce ‘carbons’. But he kinda makes more sense later, after the obligatory AGW verbiage.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by BBD
David Wojick
This is a quick illustration of your bad faith and misrepresentations. It’s why I won’t generally talk to you:
you are just shouting and making wildly general claims which cannot be true.
No demonstration of why my claims are ‘wildly general’, nor why they ‘cannot’ be true’. Delegitimisation attempt. Junk comment.
You consistently do not respond to his arguments.
False statement. Junk comment.
If a CS of 3C is a very good fit with everything we see why has it not warmed for over a decade? For that matter the UAH record, which is the closest thing we have to a measurement of global temps, shows no warming for the last 33 years except a single step up coincident with the big ENSO starting in 1998. Hardly a good fit with the steady CO2 increases.
The natural-variability-doesn’t-exist fallacy plus the monotonic warming fallacy rolled into one. Junk comment.
You claim there is no real debate but when presented with specifics you start shouting, or insulting, and change the subject. You do this consistently (a good correlation).We have seen this behavior before, many times in fact.
Another delegitimisation attempt. Junk comment.
Summary: junk comment. Action: ignore.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by thisisnotgoodtogo
No, it’s comparing cases, idiot.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Schrodinger's Cat
The warming last century correlated with CO2 concentrations and scientists concluded that there was cause and effect on the basis that such warming was unprecedented and they couldn’t think what else could have caused it. This amazing scientific proof created AGW. Models were then constructed based on these assumptions.
Several factors were ignored. The cause and effect is the reverse, with warming oceans de-gassing CO2 due to reduced solubility. The warming was not unprecedented as demonstrated by the MWP which also suggests that such warming does not require rapidly increasing CO2. There must be another natural cause which could well be solar activity, cloudiness or a factor not yet understood.
Now the warming has stopped, which means so has the correlation. Do we know why it has stopped? What if it starts cooling? Will there be furious tweaking? Perhaps CO2 also causes invisible volcanoes.
Perhaps the warming was natural after all and the models are completely wrong. Real scientists would consider this possibility.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by BBD
See above. You aren’t here in good faith, so don’t whine.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by BBD
Read the thread instead of asking redundant questions.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by BBD
Somebody else who doesn’t understand that if cloud feedback nets negative, known climate behaviour would be impossible.
So much talk, so little understanding of the basics.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by thisisnotgoodtogo
Comparing cases to see how citizenschallenge thinks his approach would work in the other case.
If he was skillful, he is innocent or at least it doesn’t matter much..
↧
Comment on Climate model discussion thread by Edim
There’s already furious tweaking and much more coming. By the way, some scientists did consider the possibility:
‘What if climate change turns out to be a natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us all.’
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by tempterrain
The temperature at which AGW becomes CAGW? That’s largely a question of semantics.
Going back to Judith’s figures of a 1-6 degC climate sensitivity (66% confidence level) would indicate there is a 1 in 6 chance of greater that 6 degC of warming.
That must be pretty close to ‘catastrophic’ by anyone’s definition.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by David Springer
I feel the same way about anyone who believes cloud feedbacks are positive. What is it that you think limits cloud cover to about 70% if feedback is positive? Why isn’t cloud cover 100%? Only negative feedback explains it. Pretty simple stuff. Observations are completely supportive.
↧
↧
Comment on Should scientists promote results over process? by tempterrain
Chief,
I have no idea at all what your problem is
That’s the trouble Chief. I wouldn’t say you don’t have any ideas. You do. but they aren’t any good.
Just thought I’d drop in “solely for a snark” 
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Philip Richens
Applies to me too. PhD, physics, Bristol. No reason to question until you look closely. Mind you, good to find the reason to explore this area – there is great stuff in there when you dig.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by Rob Starkey
Girma
But you have to admit that you were incorrect about it cooling in 2012 weren’t you?
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Terry Oldberg
I take it that you are taking the opposite side. What’s your argument?
↧
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by MrE
Too bad RC/Gavin has such a bad reputation for editing posts to suite their opinions.
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by vukcevic
Hi Steven
Got busy searching the NOAAs data, and hey presto found it:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm
↧
Comment on Policy, rhetoric and public bewilderment by feet2thefire
The “sea ice melt” is only the Arctic; the Antarctic set a new record high. The net planetary sea ice “extent” is positive. Also, even just considering only the Arctic, so what if for one moment the data shows less than in the recording era? That A.) doesn’t make it a real record; it is only the lowest measured in the short history of readings (which is essentially since the satellite era). The proper terminology is “lowest in the brief satellite history of readings.”
And B.) if the Arctic sea ice extent reaches such a low and then recovers back into the “normal range” in subsequent months, of what import was the low? And if I read the graph correctly, the extent is now within ‘norms’. If so, the low didn’t mean jack, because it had no longevity.
Steve Garcia
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
