Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0

Perspective 101: Sea level rise–11 mm vs. 36 meters.

“Thirty miles west of Holmes Reef and sixty miles east of the Great Barrier Reef lies an underwater mountain or seamount whose peak is 120 feet below the surface. During the last ice age when sea level was as much as 300 feet lower than at present this was a high island. Today it is an unnamed circle of dotted line on the chart surrounding the number 36 representing the depth in meters. With satellite navigation receiver and echosounder we find it and drop anchor. Accompanied by prolonged rattling and clanking most of a hundred meters of chain disappears down the hawse pipe and I lock the winch. In a minute the dangling chain draws out ahead to a taut forty-five degrees and we swing to, headed into a two knot current…” ~Walter Starck


Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Max_OK

$
0
0

stefanthedenier said in his post on Nov. 29, 2012 at 8:53 pm

“When water decides to expand, nothing can stop it”
_______

Water decides? Water makes decisions? I don’t think so, but even if it did, it wouldn’t have the final word.

Suppose the water in my teakettle decides to expand. I just turn the burner off, which stops the water from expanding. Who’s making the decision there?

Suppose I’m heating a pan of water to make a mess of grits, and return to find the pan dry because the water decided to expand out of the pan and go somewhere else. Do you really think it just keeps expanding as long as it likes, and nothing can stop it?

Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Lang

$
0
0

What’s happening at Doha? There’s not much news coming out. What a contrast to Copenhagen, eh?

This chart is interesting. http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic? It shows the media interest. Doha doesn’t even show up as a blip on the declining interest since Copenhagen (expand the time scale to see the detail)

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Max_OK

$
0
0

Girma, I have some questions about your choice of a base year for your chart.

1. Why did you start with 1998?

2. Are there other years you would like to start with, and if so, why?

3. Are there years you would not like to start with, and if so, why?

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Joni

$
0
0

I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0
<em>It is reasonable to consider the whole sequence, from about the time of Christ, through the early medieval warm centuries and the cold climate that followed, to our own times, as an oscillation on the same time scale, and possibly of basically the same nature, as the Bolling & Allerod oscillations in Late Glacial Times, the Piora oscillation [around 3000 BC], and the Bronze Age and early Iron Age changes in the last 4000 years.</em> ~H. H. Lamb

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

$
0
0

Chief Hydro said:

“Theoretically the next shift could be to warmer or cooler – with a finite risk of catastropic change in less than a decade.”
——–
This is as close to a meaningless statement as you can get. Essentially you’ve said “anything can happen in the future and there is some risk it could be really bad.”

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

What we have in the ocean heat content data – ubiquitous in global climate records generally – is evidence of multi-decadal variability.

xhttp://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=heat_content55-07.png

Not only hasn’t natural variability been disentangled from the climate record – the satellite record shows shows cloud changes to be by far the biggest factor in the last 30 years.

We are in a cool mode – and there are 2 questions. How cool can it get? Could we get some more ‘hiding of the heat’ at the next climate shift?


Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by stefanthedenier

$
0
0

Why for the FAKES: EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR IS FIRST OF APRIL::

”Wagaton | November 28, 2012 at 10:50 pm said: ”Nominally, it’s the sun, stupid. Why are the oceans cooling?
■1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity (LSA) – i.e., Sporer minimum
■1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity (HSA)
■1610-1700 cold – (LSA) – i.e., Maunder minimum
■1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
■1810-1900 cold – (LSA) i.e., Dalton minimum
■1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
■2010+ Possibly 3-7 decades of global cooling”

by that, Wagaton has proven that: human CAN get lower than the snake’s belly = Fakes gone cuckoo

1] the sun is warming – O&N are cooling it = overall, same every year!

2] the oceans are warming / cooling constantly – otherwise wouldn’t be evaporation and rain; Wagaton is hallucinating

3} Wagaton was watching at 1411 -12-13 the sun activity and recording it…? Well, nobody else is so stupid, to look at the sun; so that the Fakes can blame the sun for imaginary phony past GLOBAL warmings, to cover-up their sick lies; must have being him, in person… 1411- 2005, WOW. No wagaton, it’s not the sun, the butler did it; all the pagan phony warmings made the sunspots!…

B] For the first time, powerful enough filter was made, to see sunspots, was made in 2005 AD – improved the fallowing 2 years; the filter used now. Before 10y ago, nobody was aware that ”sunspots” existed.

C] Sun-flares were observed since 1900′s, by covering up the sun with cardboard and looking at the corona – BUT the flares from the corona affect where earth was 6months ago / or where is going to be in 6 months (those flares travel in 8 minutes to earth’s orbit = nothing interesting…

D] If human looks at the sun for 2 seconds, will damage the eyes as exposed from welding; but will recuperate. If looks for 7-8 seconds at the sun = guarantied, will not see any sunspots on the sun – but will ”see sunspots” even in dark room – and will never see anything else in his life

FAKE’s CAMOUFLAGING PAGAN LIES; BY FALSIFYING SUNSPOTS

1] when you look at the Fake’s ”past GLOBAL temp charts – those charts look as seismographs / as if the earth had constant hi-fever…? So, they pined blank paper against those charts and filled it up with their sun-flares / sunspots = ” Grotesque falsifying con” ”JUMBO CON”

2]Why did the Desperadoes had to do that?::::: The ”Skeptics” of the lower genera and IQ, needed to keep them in darkness, with DOUBLE LIES” Some of them were realizing that: all those past ”GLOBAL” warmings, with precision to a hundredth of a degree were CON, CON … -> so they pined / moulded/ pressed the sunspots to fit against those sick misleading ”GLOBAL” temp charts… as THEIR double proof…?! How desperate the leading Fakes become.. Would Hansen, or politicians believe that ”Wagaton’s Brains-trusts” had so many people getting blind every 7-8 seconds for the last 1000years, to monitor sun activity? No, but that’s being only made / falsified, for the nutters on the net…

3] some records say that: in Yorkshire, England 1412 was 12 bushels per acre = it was ”hot year” for the WHOLE planet… WOW!- next year was 11,5 bushels per hectare; proof that was the WHOLE planet cooler by 0,05C… another WOW!!! Was it maybe less,because locust and other pest / was no pesticide…? NO, it sounds more ”scientific”, if the locust put another 1000 spots on the sun… – year after was good rainfall in Yorkshire / 12,4 bushels = the WHOLE planet instantly warmer by 0,08C … – next year was good rain, but came when was harvest and made damages instead = ..- next year the neighbor’s goats damaged the grain, only 6-7 bushels per acre was salvaged -> because of those naughty goats – the WHOLE planet started freezing… WOW

Because the neighbor had one bottle too many in the tavern / neglected his goats… that one bottle changed the sunspots set-up on the sun, miracle… == then Thames river had frozen for 12days – somebody made paintings / no bull === that painting created LIA… Ice Age for 200y!
(do you remember last January, Danube river had frozen in Serbia, Romania = 1000- miles closer to the equator and 10 times larger than Thames == that would be made by the ”Original Criminals” as ”300y of Midi Ice Age, but because you see it on TV, they are avoiding. Shell we name last January freezing on the Balkans as: ”Midi Ice Age for 300years” (MIA) Eat your guts out Wagaton – we now have LIA + MIA. P.s. because now is double production of grain per acre = must be double temperature and sunspots… ?…?…? Mama mia… science…

Ladies and gentlemen; the sunspots miraculously molded themselves onto their con / phony GLOBAL temp charts, as hot chocolate on a cake…. And they call Hansen, Al Gore liars…?…?…?!!!

Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by gbaikie

$
0
0

-Now a million degree object is obviously hot. And it would certainly be emitting longwave IR, but the energy one would notice the most would be the Gamma and X-rays which be vaporizing anything too close to it.-

Note the word object. Atoms [or an atom] which are a million degrees, would be far less exciting.
An object going the speed light would be rather exotic and exciting, an atom going to speed of light is less rare and somewhat commonplace.
Oh, I going reference, sonoluminescence, but apparently the temperature reached is only about 10,000 K:
“Energies on the order of an electron volt are typical on an atomic basis and correspond to an effective temperature on the order of 10,000 kelvins. This is a pretty high temperature, of course, and can influence chemical reactions. Thus, sonoluminescence is often associated with ‘sound chemistry’–or ‘sonochemistry.’ The fact that a rather benign mechanical mechanism such as a propagating sound field can produce atomic reactions is a quite remarkable and has attracted considerable scientific attention ”
http://www.tahionic.com/templar/web29.html
But apparent only in the pseudoscience of cold fusion that it’s suppose to get up to a million degrees.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0

After receiving your honorary degree from Penn State perhaps you can share a nobel with your soul mate Michael Mann since you have so much in common.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Max_OK

$
0
0

Did Walter Starck actually believe he used to be Jesus? Read the following quote from his web site:

“You are not here to bridge the gap between your humanity and your divinity as though they are two. You are here to close the gap so that what you have considered your human-ness is revealed as being the perfect expression of your divine Christ-self. That is what my life symbolized when I was Jesus.”

Wag, I think it highly unlikely Walter Starck was ever Jesus, but I suppose anything is possible, so I don’t blame you for sucking up to Walter by quoting him.

I was going to say Walter Starck is just another old codger, a member of the shrinking demographic of global warming deniers. But I just found out Walter has passed on.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

$
0
0

Chief Hydro,

Again, you are wrong about correlation. There is one, but you’ve the the cart before the horse. TOAnet follows surface net LW, as found clearly on this research:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120004263_2012004193.pdf

Where the specific find was:

• TOAnet energy loss follows max T-trop. SFCnet leads because of LW emission.

Energy flows from ocean to the TOA, and even more interesting, during El Niños the heat in the 0-100m layer of the ocean goes up as the heat in the 300-100m layer goes down. The reason why of course is the energy is flowing from the deeper layer to the upper layer to the atmosphere to the TOA and then out to space. Quite interesting and just the opposite of what you Chief Hydro have been postulating.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by stefanthedenier

$
0
0
Wagathon | November 29, 2012 at 11:36 pm proudly quoted a lie: ''It is reasonable to consider the whole sequence, from about the time of Christ, through the early medieval warm centuries and the cold climate that followed, to our own times, as an oscillation on the same time scale, and possibly of basically the same nature, as the Bolling & Allerod oscillations in Late Glacial Times, the Piora oscillation [around 3000 BC], and the Bronze Age and early Iron Age changes in the last 4000 years. ~H. H. Lamb'' HUBERT LAMB PREDICTED: NUCLEAR WINTER BY YEAR 2000, BECAUSE OF CO2 DIMMING EFFECT. Only liar is proud of professional liars as Hubert. Now the building in East Anglia, where your brain-trusts are; is called ''Hubert Lamb Building'' the English ''Building of Shame!'' That psichopat Hubert is the precursor of today's phony GLOBAL warming. Instead of taking in consideration my proofs, that: since the invention of artificially starting fires, climate kept changing from bad to worse == improved by opening of Gibraltar -- after improved from opening of Bosporus ==== but that is for Europe & Mideast - north Africa only; yes for that con and similar - the rest of the planet didn't exist. shame, shame, shame!!!

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by jim2

$
0
0

It seems likely that the “back again” would be triggered by the tilt of the axis of the Earth relative to the Sun. The trigger would be that the tilt changes in such a manner to expose more land and less ice to the Sun’s radiation.


Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by DocMartyn

$
0
0

” BBD | November 29, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

If the climate system was dominated by negative feedbacks then it would be insensitive and it wouldn’t exhibit the substantial variability that it actually does. So we *know* that feedbacks net positive. Otherwise the climate system wouldn’t do much. That would be a physical impossibility.”

Let’s go about this simply. The Earth absorbs heat and comes to a steady state temperature. At this steady state the emission of heat of the Earth is equal and opposite to the heat absorbed. As a rule of thumb, all things being equal, we know that emission is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.
Now at steady state influx equals efflux, but it is heat that is being balanced, and it is ‘average’ temperature which determines efflux.

Now, all very simple stuff. Whereas your comment:-

“If the climate system was dominated by negative feedbacks then it would be insensitive and it wouldn’t exhibit the substantial variability that it actually does. So we *know* that feedbacks net positive. Otherwise the climate system wouldn’t do much. That would be a physical impossibility.”

We know that the climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks, cool the Earth and efflux goes down, heat it and efflux goes up. The input into the system is solar, and that’s about it. This is a classical negative feedback; drop influx (clouds/aerosols/quiet sun) and the Earth cools; increase the influx, (large continental land masses and deep ocean, little intrastella dust, little DMS) and temperatures rise.

There are no steady state systems you can model in which ‘positive feedback’s’ dominate. Indeed, this is quite obvious and the basis of all modeled steady state systems. Systems in which there are negative feedback loops are stable, but subject to perturbations, and sometimes oscillations.
Stable systems are stable because they are stable. Systems that look like an elephant balancing on its trunk atop a pyramid, are intrinsically subject to positive feedback’s and only observable for short periods of time.

Your description of Earths climate as ‘the substantial variability’ is laughable and shows your quite, human, bias.
The Earth has maintained a steady state temperature of about 284 K +/-4K for the last 800,000 years. In that time every single ecosystem on the planet has changed more than once.. 800,000 years ago the Aorounga impact crater’s were formed. The Yellowstone Caldera formed 640,000 years ago and last covered the lower 48 states. Yellowstone erupted some 70,000 years ago, as did a volcano in Sumatra, leaving behind Lake Toba. This one-two left the Earth with only 2,000 humans, the closest we came to an extinction level event.

Now the only case I know where positive feedback’s have been extensively modeled is in nuclear device design. Here the designers wish to get the highest possible neutron breeder and neutron flux. After the initial chemical explosive compression stage X-Ray/Gamma-Ray flux is used to form a plasma in the packing surrounding the pit. I cannot think of a non-explosive system that has positive feedback.
Huge volcano’s, massive impacts, and 284 K +/-4K. Positive feedback my arse.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Wagathon

$
0
0

Facts are facts: The Little Ice Ages and Solar Minima in 1440-1460, 1687-1703 and 1809-1821 …(Professor Nils-Axel Mörner)

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

DocMartyn is the guy with the crazy space-iron-dust/algae theory.
He posted Part 1 on Climate Etc but never got around to Part 2.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/21/a-biologists-perspective-on-ice-ages-and-climate-sensitivity-part-i/

In contrast, BBD is simply describing an evolution towards a meta-stable system, which is conventional scientific analysis.
Look at all the pieces that show positive feedback effects:
1. Increase heat, which increases water vapor partial pressure which increases GHG effect
2. Increase heat, increase outgassing of CO2 which increases GHG effect.
3. Increase heat, decrease average reflectivity of the ice/snow surface area.
4. Increase heat which increases the metabolism and breakdown of organics; these go into short-term methane and long-term CO2. Since warming occurs more in northern latitudes, this may have a large influence on frozen peat bogs and methane clathrates.

Plus lots of man-made influences which could have some effect. Clear-cutting forests, UHI effect, etc.
Some of these could be negative, but no one has described a significant feedback besides the Planck response. We have the equivalent negative feedback on electronics that we try to keep cool, but this does not disallow the possibility of thermal runaway should the design parameters get perturbed.

That is the conventional view just as BBD has described, free from crack-pottery.

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by omanuel

$
0
0

Witnesses to the US House Subcommittee Review on Solar and Space Physics said on 28 November 2012:

_ 1. The United States is Vulnerable to space weather
_ 2. Policy-makers Need Improved Knowledge for
_ 3. Improved Ability to Forecast Space Weather

http://science.house.gov/press-release/subcommittee-reviews-solar-and-space-physics-program

Are AGW modelers aware of space weather?

Do they know the Sun’s sphere of influence extends more than 120 AU out from the Sun, far beyond the most distant planets [Nature 489, 20-21 (2012)]?
http://www.nature.com/news/voyager-s-long-goodbye-1.11348

Comment on Clouds and MAGIC by Tom

$
0
0

Tub O’ Lub, You sir, must love science when you can say…

“Plus lots of man-made influences which could have some effect.”

Warm & cozy

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images