Certainly Judith’s site and public expression of her position on the issues represents the Goldilocks of climate blogs. Not too warm or too cold. One could see this as attempting to create a sort of Mediocristan of blogs and middle ground position. It may aid in furthering true discourse on the issue, but the reality is likely to be something from Extremistan, with the actual Reality Monster dwelling either at “it’s no where near as bad as forecast– in fact the extra CO2 has been a good thing” or “Oh my god, why didn’t they see how bad this was going to be!”.
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by The Skeptical Warmist
↧
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by Lance Wallace
Forgot to include the link to the 1979 NAS report.
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by The Skeptical Warmist
The majority of species could go extinct at the same time as humans and it wouldn’t really matter in terms of life on Earth. Within 10 million years or so of such an extinction event, new species would arise and life would once more flourish.
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by The Skeptical Warmist
LIA was disappeared? Exactly by whom? Please cite the exact papers or other documentation of this.
↧
Comment on Cool first, warm later by Doug Cotton
There’s a prediction of cooling until 2027 which I archived on 22 August 2011 on this page which has not been altered since that date …
http://www.earth-climate.com/home.html
It reads …
From 2003 the effect of El Niño had passed and a slightly declining trend has been observed. This is the net effect of the 60-year cycle starting to decline whilst the 934 year cycle is still rising. By 2014 the decline should be steeper and continue until at least 2027. (This statement was archived 22 August 2011 here)
↧
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by The Skeptical Warmist
Regarding the broader principle of the perfect conditions for life in this solar system or elsewhere in he universe. The nearly daily discovery of exoplanets with many of them falling in the habitable zone of their associated star or stars, it seem more and more ad though creating the conditions for life is what this particular universe is all about.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Alexander Biggs
It is hard to say what was in Arrhenius’ mind (the younger) , but he made his name by showing that many chemical reactions could be speeded up by increased temperature. He had no way of producing or measuring radiation at 15 microns, or that the earth’s radiation into space would peak at about 15 microns. Indeed it was not until after WW2 that those of us working on IR guidance found that there were wavelengths we could not use because of atmospheric absorption. But I don’t recall us consulting his work.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Jim D
It is possible he didn’t know the wavelength, just the absorption coefficient which is sufficient for an estimate of the effect of doubling. He also formulated the log law for the effect.
↧
Comment on Never look a polar bear in the eye by Max_OK
Name two things that are blubbery, noisy, and flop around a lot.
1. Seals
2. AGW deniers
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by gbaikie
“But why did the IPCC not explain this years ago. The 1000 to 1 ratio would justify skepticism and require explanation that would help avoid the divided nations of today, or at least we would know what the divide was about.”
The Greenhouse effect theory does not mention heat capacity- it’s all about the radiant properties of atmospheric gas [greenhouse gases].
But when climate science is discussing the warming effects of say, the Gulf Stream and it’s warming effect on Europe- that is about heat capacity of ocean.
Or weathermen are largely dealing with heat capacity of atmosphere.
But the theory of the Greenhouse Effect and focus what the IPCC is all about, is largely ignoring heat capacity.
So regarding the greenhouse theory:
CO2 molecules in atmosphere isn’t necessarily getting warmer, rather surface longwave IR causes CO2 molecules to glow longwave IR, and this longwave IR is suppose to be warming something.
Some assume it’s the surface- so this is what called backradiation.
Others explain it as inhibiting heat from radiating from the surface.
And others seem talk about it inhibiting longwave IR radiation, until reaches a certain elevation- and the addition of greenhouse gases would raise the elevation that gases can radiate to space.
The third is commonly assumed as fundamental basis in climate models. [And third has been disproven, as far as lacking any evidence of the predicted hot spot- but hey, why should they allow that small detail discourage them.]
But I do think it’s largely about heat capacity, and it is the major element which is responsible for what is called the “Greenhouse Effect”.
And I have some sympathy for whose who call it all a hoax.
But assign most of it, to the tendency in society for any pseudoscience to become broadly accepted.
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by mwgrant
If I explore the story a little from the bears perspective (ursidopic principle) then things look different. For papa bear the big chair, hot porridge, and big bed are just right; for momma bear her chair, porridge and bed were just right; and for baby bear the little chair, porridge, and small bed were just right. That is, in an ursine universe we seem to need a multi-model. One that is just right.
This leads to a couple of issues. First, selecting the right averaging scheme is a bear of a problem. Second, how do the unique sets of landmarks for each bear–low, just right, high–map into the Goldilopic universe. Here the assumption is that Goldilock’s and the bears’ realities (formally pictures) must at least intersect to some degree–what physical invariants constrain the different pictures or better yet what is the best way to split the total system Hamiltonian in order to clearly see Goldilocks-Bear interactions.
It’s been too long and I just can’t figure it out. It is pure chaos. Hence I shall fall back on the ‘Hansel and Gretel Principle’, shove it all in the oven and bake the hell out of it.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by mwgrant
Max_OK,
Nice summary.
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by mwgrant
I tried it for a number of baking times. It seems to be converging to some sort of Zeno’s paradox. No matter long I bake it, it comes out half baked. (At least it is renormalizable.)
↧
↧
Comment on The Goldilocks Principle by mwgrant
Why the Goldilocks Principle isn’t
The Goldilocks Principle is not a principle because its application is not constrainted to getting at some intrinsic truth. Rather it is more of a rule-of-thumb, heuristic. Applying it as a principle gives unmerited perceived credibility to its ‘prediction’. It belongs in pop culture.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Memphis
OK, so alarmists have a wriggle-out of the 16-year non-warming, by reference to ocean-atmosphere cycles, saying we are currently in one where there is less warming of the atmosphere by the oceans.
“Roll on La Nina”. Yes, this will be a test.
Gates, if this comes and there is still no warming, how would you then respond ?
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Peter Davies
Thanks for your response gbaikie. I had forgotten that our SS is itself orbiting around the Milky Way Galactic centre. The cycles are indeed very long and they would be extraordinarily difficult to track.
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Edim
I am aware that strong cooling like LIA will be very destructive to people. Climate change is like seasons – inevitable. IMO, the sun is the variable to be studied and if we want to predict which way the global climate will go, observe the solar variations and oscillations. Physical mechanism or not, if we can predict without it, that’s much better than wrong mechanism, no matter how convenient.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Edim
Speaking of El Nino, the indices are at about zero, but the forecasts changed lately to weak La Nina in spring 2013. Interesting times.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/gsstanim.gif
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by greg goodman
Fiddle Factors.
One of the less obvious and undocumented features of this spreadsheet is the fiddle factor call FComp. The values used can be seen in $AB27:$AE27
FComp1 FComp2 FComp3 FComp4 1X 1.5X 1.5X 1.5X
Having determined the defective F3 filtered result, it gets multiplied by 1.5 before being called HALEy : each element in the HALE column. Similarly for TSI and ENSO. These amplified values are then subtracted to calculate “residual” (RES2, RES3, RES4) for the next stage of the filtering.
So what is subtracted is NOT the filtered result but 1.5X the filtered result.
Now all the filter coefficients shown in the impulse responses table add to 1.0 so there should be no need to scale the results.
There is no mention or explanation of these fiddle factors in cell AB38, which explains the filters, nor anywhere else that I can see. The $NAMES sheet comments them as “filter compensation” , compensation for what?! They seem totally arbitrary and without justification.
So what effect do they have?
Simple, they scale up by 1.5 the size of what gets attributed to HALE , TSI and ENSO.
I have already noted how the progression of TSI in figure 9 is physically unrealistic in that it carries on plunging when the solar minimum was reached in 2008.
What this is doing is artificially exaggerating the fall in HALE and TSI to compensate for the increasing deviation of an unrealistic AGW model that does not match the climate record.
Since Prof Pratt is no longer replying to comments we will have to imagine what justification he may wish to present for these fiddle factors.
↧
Comment on Cli-Fi by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Best-selling author Neal Stephenson has got there firstest-with-the-mostest:
The Diamond Age “The geotects of Imperial Tectonics [Corporation] would not have known an ecosystem if they’d been living in the middle of one. But they did know that ecosystems were especially tiresome when they got fubared, so they protected the environment with the same implacable, plodding, green-visored mentality that they applied to designing overpasses and culverts.”
Note that The Diamond Age (2000) won both the Hugo and Locus awards.
Summary The Diamond Age is pretty far toward the “technology can solve all our problems” school of fiction, without being cloying or politically dogmatic in this regard. And, The Diamond Age displays a sense of humor.
Good on `yah, Neal!
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffcc&fg=ff0000&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
