Some poetry?
Comment on Why climate disasters might not increase concern about climate change by gbaikie
↧
↧
Comment on Why climate disasters might not increase concern about climate change by Peter Lang
Michael,
You said:
as opposed to the video, where he is asked to explain what the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’ is, which he does with accuracy.
Your statement is a misrepresentation. That’s deceptive behaviour on your part. Hansen says at about 2 mins into the video words to the effect “the oceans will evaporate, boil off”. I haven’t checked the exact words, but that is his message. He’s been saying similare for many years.
What I find more significant than any error in the exact wording of my quotes is that you intentionally set out to deceive and mislead readers.
That is a common characteristic of CAGW Alarmists. And that is why so many people, and increasing numbers, are recognising many of you are just a pack of liars.
This bvehaviour is giving credibility to the statement that “CAGW is a scam’ – because many CAGW alarmists, like you, are scammers.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Tomcat
Further issues repeatedly dodged by Myrrh.
(1) Where is the alleged standard science that says visible light cannot heat anything ?
(2) And even assuming it can’t, how does that negate the idea of GHGs ? Unless you also deny the the earth is being warmed by the sun (causing it to radiate), it makes no difference which of the sun’s wavelengths are warming the earth.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Beth Cooper
Say Tomcat, about Descartes and sleeping till noon, what finished Descartes off was having ter get up at dawn in co-o-o-ld northern
latitudes ter debate with pesky royalty. Think he may have
succumbed ter pneumonia.
I myself gladly will sleep ter noon if i get the chance, having spent
half the night burning the midnight oil…( planet destroyer as I am.)
“I sleep, therefore I am,”
Sleeping denoting the existence of a ‘Sleeper.’
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Beth Cooper
Oops! Not Tomcat but Petra. Apologies ter both.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by BatedBreath
Oh it’s easy, Tomcat.
If like Myrrh you also deny that CO2 cannot absorb heat from IR (or any wavelength, actually), then there is no trapping of heat by the atmosphere. No such thing as a GHG.
What happens by this account is:-
- Incoming visible light passes straight through the atmosphere, ie does not warm it. It also does not warm the earth’s land or water.
- Incoming IR also passes straight through the atmosphere without warming it.
- But unlike the visible light, this incoming IR does warm the earth
- The earth then radiates this heat back out as IR
- This outgoing IR similarly passes straight through the atmosphere without warming it
So IR comes in, and goes back out again, having no effect on the CO2 in the atmosphere in either direction. Thus it makes no difference to the temperature of earth how much or how little CO2 there is in the atmosphere, or whether the CO2 content is constant or changes.
That’s his theory, anyway ….
↧
Comment on Whither (wither?) climate science? by Peter Lang
I do agree with Steven Mosher that blogging is ‘just playing in a sand pit’ and bloggesr have no power. It is frightening to think that modellers like him do have so much power.
His comments about Obama’s capacity to bribe the state governors into submission are also correct and very worrying. How much more US debt will he run up in such bribes – and all because he trusts the modellers?
I’d suggest the modellers are dangerous. I expect people who know more history than I do can point out the parallels.
↧
Comment on Whither (wither?) climate science? by Beth Cooper
Peter Lang re ‘trusting modellers’.. Cloud towers ain’t reality, but
sadly, oh so sadly, corridors of power, power elite decisions within
the confines of UN, IPCC, CRU, secret policy meetings of theBBC,
these are the reality backed up by a compliant media.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by gbaikie
“That’s why is more productive to explain to people that are not fanatics, as Tomcat, Springer, Chief. On the other hand: people as lolwot, gbaikie, WebTheCrackpot, Gates; no point to explain – because they know that THEY are lying = truth irritates them.”
I am not aware of a single thing that I am lying about.
And so, I would be happy if you pointed one one thing you think I am lying about.
Not only I am not aware of anything which you might think I am lying about, I don’t know what you disagree with that I have ever said. I don’t even feel sufficiently confident to attempt a guess.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Palindrone
“Descartes walks into a bar.,” (way above)
Supposedly an unoriginal “joke” ? Since when are these thought of as jokes? He was of course well known to be a drunken fart.
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/5/12 by Memphis
Memphis | ” You (Stefan) still haven’t explained how while oxygen and nitrogen are insulators against downwelling heat, they are at the same time conductors for upwelling heat”
campfire of 300-400C, O&N prevent radiation of that heat sideways, for more than 5feet.. agree, Memphis?
O&N too are greenhouse gasses now?
And the rest of your post was utterly incoherent I’m afraid.
↧
Comment on Whither (wither?) climate science? by gbaikie
I think of it as lost opportunity- rather than dangerous.
Though obviously there can danger connected with this.
Nor I am impressed with “Obama’s capacity to bribe” or
making anyone [particularly governors] do anything, regardless of what it is.
But I will be duly impressed if he does manage anything along those lines.
I would be terrified if I lived in Israel- not because Obama going to do something, but the uncertainty that Obama will do anything.
It’s the non action, or staring into the headlights, when action may be required, which is the main “worry”. As compared to say a Mrs Clinton as a president- I would worry what she would do.
As climate matters, I think it largely depends on global temperature- and for last decade or so, it’s going no where. And seems like nowhere is where it’s going for next few years.
↧
Comment on Whither (wither?) climate science? by Memphis
So you question the reliability of the ice core CO2 records now
Are you referencing the debunked stuff by Beck btw?
A more general question : what do you call it when a debunking is debunked?
↧
↧
Comment on Whither (wither?) climate science? by Memphis
re cooked books
This would only be a “conspiracy” if one assumes the IPCC is out to discover the truth. But since clearly they’re activists for world governance, any attempt in their ranks to discover the truth is what would count as a “conspiracy”.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by BBD
CH
He who knows <i>nothing</i> about paleoclimate can be relied upon to spout crap on paleoclimate. <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/23/why-climate-disasters-might-not-increase-concern-about-climate-change/#comment-271675" rel="nofollow">See here.</a> Learn somewhat. Do us all a favour. Your attempts to link paleo abrupt change to your crackpottery are painful nonsense.
Part of your problem is that you dodge around all over the place whenever you come upon a comment you can't respond to, and then we have to go through the whole tiresome denialist two-step again. As here.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by mwgrant
Beth-
Haiku offers both discipline and control:
With five seven five
discipline reins in excess,
one ‘nub’ at a time.
while giving quick almost instant relief. Consider other parts of this thread:
Psigh for poor quantum,
climate ills’ wrapping paper?
lost in Hilbert space.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by BBD
Since Max is here too, I will just repeat the comment he *and* CH dodged elsewhere. It's the only way to deal with this sort of behaviour:
manacker
CH is leading you up the garden path. The NAS report’s discussion of abrupt paleoclimate change was in some ways alarmist! Yes, I did say that ;-)
What you and CH would greatly benefit from is a more carefully considered view of the types and mechanisms of abrupt paleoclimate change and their *non-applicability* to late Holocene climate conditions.
A splendid place to start would be <a href="http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/abrupt2006.pdf" rel="nofollow">Wunsch (2006)</a>, which discusses the nature and origin of Dansgaard-Oeschger events.
As ever, we must pay <b>very close attention to the actual words used</b> or we will make colossal prats out of ourselves à la CH:
<blockquote>Hypotheses and inferences concerning the nature of abrupt climate change, exemplified by the Dansgaard–Oeschger (D–O) events, are reviewed. There is little concrete evidence that these events are more than a regional Greenland phenomenon.
[...]
<b>Connection of D–O events to the possibility of modern abrupt climate change rests on a very weak chain of assumptions</b>.</blockquote>
Now, even if we disagree with Wunsch about the spatial extent of D-O events there is no getting around his argument that they disappeared during the Holocene and their existence is therefore a <b>glacial climate phenomenon</b> (whatever the exact causative mechanism; again we don’t need to determine this here). Now, read the last line of the abstract in bold above again.
D-O oscillations and Heinrich events (collectively termed the glacial Bond Cycle) and AMOC shutdowns like the Younger Dryas are all confined to glacial or deglacial climate conditions. They <b>do not</b> occur in interglacials. See <a href="http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/studium/lehre/Uphysik/paleo_climate/2006RG000204.pdf" rel="nofollow">Clement & Peterson (2008)</a> for a comprehensive overview.
Here, 11.5ka into the Holocene, there *is* no plausible mechanism for a significant and sustained cooling as the climate system undergoes sustained and increasing GHG forcing. Swiftly overwhelmed wibbles are all you are going to get and the forced trend will dominate on the centennial scale.
Contrary to CH’s imaginings, climate system behaviour under forcing is *not* so chaotic as to be unpredictable. We can easily see this by looking at the repetitive, self-similar, essentially *predictable* deglaciations under orbital forcing revealed in the ice core and ocean sediment data.
CH will fulminate himself into an advanced state of absurdity before admitting that this puts paid to his ‘new climate paradigm’ that climate is so chaotic as to be inherently unpredictable but it does, and that’s the end of that.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Steady Eddie
Myrrh fictionalfisics says visible light from the Sun cannot warm the earth
<a>Some clarification of this issue now on the latest thread</a>
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Steady Eddie
try this one
<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/25/open-thread-weekend-3/#comment-271570" rel="nofollow">Some clarification of this issue now on the latest thread</a
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist
Climate is unpredictable other than as a probability density function. This is because both models and climate are chaotic. And I have quoted sufficiently on that. It is something that is well understood by modellers. Tim Palmer as the head of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts must be accounted as a leading leading practitioner as is James McWilliams.
But also the point at which transitions occur – and the speed and extent of transitions are unpredictable. They may be approached by for instance – http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14308.full –
‘In the Earth’s history, periods of relatively stable climate have often been interrupted by sharp transitions to a contrasting state. One explanation for such events of abrupt change is that they happened when the earth system reached a critical tipping point. However, this remains hard to prove for events in the remote past, and it is even more difficult to predict if and when we might reach a tipping point for abrupt climate change in the future. Here, we analyze eight ancient abrupt climate shifts and show that they were all preceded by a characteristic slowing down of the fluctuations starting well before the actual shift. Such slowing down, measured as increased autocorrelation, can be mathematically shown to be a hallmark of tipping points. Therefore, our results imply independent empirical evidence for the idea that past abrupt shifts were associated with the passing of critical thresholds. Because the mechanism causing slowing down is fundamentally inherent to tipping points, it follows that our way to detect slowing down might be used as a universal early warning signal for upcoming catastrophic change. Because tipping points in ecosystems and other complex systems are notoriously hard to predict in other ways, this is a promising perspective.’
Chaos in the sense of complex systems theory is not random but is entirely deterministic. The outcomes are constrained by the topology of the phase space. So the mere fact that glacials and interglacials have alternated in the Quaternary do not change the underlying dynamical mechanisms – ice, snow, cloud, biology, dust – that change dramatically in response to the presumably orbital trigger in the way described by the NAS.
‘Weather changes abruptly from day to day, and there is no basic difficulty in understanding such changes because they involve a “fast” and easily observed part of the climate system (e.g., clouds and precipitation). But mechanisms behind abrupt climate change must surmount a fundamental hurdle in that they must alter the working of a “slow” (i.e., persistent) component of the climate system (e.g., ocean fluxes) but must do so rapidly. Two key components of the climate system are oceans and land ice. In addition, the atmospheric response is a crucial ingredient in the mix of mechanisms that might lead to abrupt climate change because the atmosphere knits together the behavior of the other components. The atmosphere potentially also gives rise to threshold behavior in the system, whereby gradual changes in forcing yield nearly discontinuous changes in response.
- A mechanism that might lead to abrupt climate change would need to have the following characteristics:
- A trigger or, alternatively, a chaotic perturbation, with either one causing a threshold crossing (something that initiates the event).
- An amplifier and globalizer to intensify and spread the influence of small or local changes.
A source of persistence, allowing the altered climate state to last for up to centuries or millennia.’
You comenced with nonsense and insults – and continued in the same vein. You can give me not one reference that supports your armwaving. This is simply how climate works. If you cannot or will not understand it is not my problem.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
