The only thing changing with warmer global ocean temperatures would be their average intensity and the frequency of more intense ones.
Probably doesn’t matter much.
There’s a lot more variability than there is trend in the ACE:
Comment on JC interview: hurricanes and global warming by Turbulent Eddie
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
I’m with Wally on the science. To quote myself – climate data show the chaotic heart of the beast pounding through woodland and savannah. It moves with immense power and speed across landscapes and oceans. It shifts suddenly and fiercely. We ain’t seen fierce in the 20th century – we ain’t nothin’ yet. But what shall we do now with this wild and angry beast? There are approaches mooted – including shibboleths of neo-green-leftists – which are not worth worrying about. But there are a plurality of solutions to other problems each with intrinsic mitigation or sequestration potential. I can point to a couple of dozen off the top of the heads of Nobel laureate economists. I like to see it as part of a global mission to secure prosperous communities in vibrant and resilient landscapes this century.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/post-2015_presentation_3.pdf
↧
Comment on JC interview: hurricanes and global warming by Jim D
It’s at least a step to acknowledge trends, because with these trends come added real costs and needs for mitigation, adaptation, and resilience that can’t be just ignored. Insurance industries and governments dealing with coastal areas are highly aware of this.
↧
Comment on JC interview: hurricanes and global warming by Jim D
For example, Houston. Three recent 100-year floods. Time to do something.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/houston-prepare-for-climate-change_us_59d7f773e4b046f5ad984a71
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
David Wojick,
There is no point us discussions this. We’ve been over and over it many before. Your responses have demonstrated you don’t have the most basic understanding of it. You can’t even recall the point. So there is no point repeating it again since you just don’t get it, or refuse to. If you were interested in trying to understand, you’d go back and background yourself on the comments I’ve made previously.
You don’t understand that policy has to be justified on costs versus benefits and versus the benefits that could be achieved if the funds were used for other purposes. You just don’t get any of that. The few of the 16,000 Google Scholar studies you gave the link to had no mention of economic impacts. You don’t even have sufficient understanding of the subject to search correctly.
Honestly, you have destroyed any credibility you may have once had with me.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
David Wojick,
if you want to demonstrate you do know something about the issues of the economic impacts of global warming, please provide a link to the best, most recent study that provides the following information: the economic impact in percent of GDP per degree of GMST change up to + 4C GMST increase, broken down by:
• total economic impact for the world and for each economic/geographic region
• by economic impact sector; such as Agriculture, Health, Sea Level Rise, fresh water, severe storms, ecosystems, energy consumption
• For energy consumption, breakdown by impact of heating expenditure and cooling expenditure
Here is a comparison of the three most widely used and cited IAMs: http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/research/climate_change/IACC_DamageFunctions_FINAL_1.pdf
FUND http://www.fund-model.org/home is the most complex and provides the outputs I listed above (as far as I know it is the only IAM that does). However, the only impact sector that has significant negative impacts is energy consumption. But, the energy consumption projection is based on one study from over 20 years ago, and which is not readily accessible. And whereas the impact of global warming on energy consumption was positive for the past 110 years (based on empirical data), when the model projection continues after the period of empirical data (2010) the impact suddenly turns substantially negative (and sinks like the Titanic). It looks like another hockey stick. If not for the projected negative impact of energy consumption, the FUND analyses indicate global warming would be beneficial up to around +4C GMST.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Atomsk's Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan)
Does anyone know whether Curry has discussed the following paper yet?:
“Troposphere-Stratosphere Temperature Trends Derived From Satellite Data Compared With Ensemble Simulations From WACCM”
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/randel+polvani+etal-JGR-2017-online.pdf
It came out September 25 and I’ve been looking forward to it for awhile, ever since Randel presented a poster for it at a recent conference. I haven’t seen Curry discuss the paper, nor I have seen any of the “skeptic” (*cough* denialist *cough*) websites discuss the paper. That’s a bit strange, since this paper is interesting for a number of reasons. For example:
1) The paper compares satellite-based tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling trends to model-based predictions of those trends.
2) The paper focuses on RSS and NOAA/STAR, to the exclusion of UAH. This shows bad some scientists think the UAH analysis is. UAH is apparently an outlier in both the stratosphere [DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024039] and the troposphere [for example, DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1], likely stemming for UAH’s deeply flawed homogenization [for example, DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1 and DOI: 10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1]
3) The paper constrains the model-based atmospheric projections using updated forcings, something that was previously done for surface-based projections [for example, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2105 ]. This serves as a nice complement to Santer’s previous papers that discussed model-based, atmospheric temperature projections [DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0333.1, page 379; DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2973].
4) The paper presents evidence of one of the the fingerprints of CO2-induced global warming: stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming.
5) The paper shows show stratospheric cooling continued higher in the stratosphere post-1997. It also shows how lower stratospheric cooling slowed down to almost nothing post-1997, consistent with ozone recovery in response to agreements (like the Montreal Protocol) that limited human release of ozone-depleting substances [for example, DOI: 10.5194/acp-10-12161-2010 and DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8233]. So CO2 has a larger relative impact on cooling higher in the stratosphere, a nice confirmation of what scientists have known for awhile [for example, DOI: 10.1002/2015JD023841, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2624, and DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2955.1] and consistent with CO2’s role in causing cooling up in the mesosphere and thermosphere [for example, DOI: 10.1029/GL016i012p01441, DOI: 10.1029/1999GL011333, and DOI: 10.1002/jgra.50354].
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
Sunlight heats the surface which emits photons in the atmosphere. Some escapes `- about 7% – directly to space. Some is absorbed by greenhouse gases and re-emitted in every direction in photon scattering – increasing the number of photons hitting the surface and the lower atmosphere. A photon is literally a packet of energy – real energy – but what matters is the net flux. Ultimately it will all escape to space as radiant energy – but greenhouse gases increase the amount of energy bouncing around the atmosphere and warms the planet. IR net is positive upwards – as it must be. SW energy is converted to IR energy and we must ultimately strike a radiant balance at toa. The surface balance is incoming SW and about 50% each IR and evaporation and convection.
Radiant energy at top of atmosphere tends to equilibriate – radiant equilibrium is a state of maximum entropy. But terms such as this are not either necessary or desirable. Jargon anywhere and I simply assume they are talking through their arses while gilding their intellectual lily. There is a lot of that around here.
I am sure that Alexander has a lot more knowledge than the usual suspects. But evaporation and convection merely is a longer path to losing energy to space if you consider turbulent global flow fields.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
So Pete copies and pastes himself. It must have been especially profound and pompous. We are definitively on different pages.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler
Robert I Ellison: I am sure that Alexander has a lot more knowledge than the usual suspects.
I suspect that he merely needs practice writing out his ideas in a consistent use of words, logical order, and chronological or narrative order for energy flows. His exposition jumps all over, and he contradicts what he seems to have written earlier.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
There are some good letters in the Australian today regarding Lombor’s weekend article. These show that at least some people understand what is important and relevant regarding ‘climate policy’. And the number is clearly growing, at last
If only politicians could see the sense of Lomborg
First letter:
How fortunate we are to have the weekend article by Bjorn Lomborg (“Clinging to Paris isn’t really cool”, 14/10). It has so much common sense, and so much understanding.
Highlighting of the unreachable goals embedded in the Paris agreement set the tone for his excellent critique of climate policies worldwide. He rightly emphasises the futility of renewable subsidies and directs attention to the need for innovation to lead the march away from fossil fuels.
To think that universities here in Australia walked away from his offer to base a branch of his consensus centre in Perth or Adelaide because he said there were important questions about how to approach the debate.
It’s unfortunate we don’t see more of this man in our local debate on energy and climate change,
Simon Gamble
Second letter:
The propaganda slogan “climate change is real” is used by those who believe they should impose their catastrophic views and draconian “solutions” on us.
Any leader, policy maker or citizen who can’t see the point Bjorn Lomborg is making about emissions is an imbecile. We are destroying our economy because we are pressured into it by the UN, vested interests and green loonies. It might be a bit warmer in 2100, but it might not be a problem. We will not prosper in the future by regressing to a lower standard of living now.
The government should get some spine and recognise that it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Someone has to call this climate change nonsense for what it is, and get on with fixing the problem by burning coal and axing the renewable energy target.
Bill Shorten’s offer of bipartisanship on the clean energy target is a political exercise, making the government squirm a bit more before adopting another catastrophic policy.
David Bidstrup, Plympton Park, SA
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
If only politicians could see the sense of Lomborg
Third letter:
Bjorn Lomborg highlights a great global con — the political response to climate change. His approach of looking for cost-effective ways of dealing with the world’s problems is just too practical and sensible to gain any traction.
The proposal to establish in Australia a government-funded equivalent of Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Centre was seen as outrageous by the left and the Greens. Imagine Nobel laureates applying logical analysis to climate change?
The proposal was rejected by two universities after a strong anti-Lomborg campaign. Perhaps it threatened the climate change political agenda. The big danger we face in Australia is the shutting down of sensible climate change debate by the Greens and left-wing of politics. What do they want to hide from voters?
L Smith, Kenmore, Qld
Fourth letter:
What a powerful article by Bjorn Lomborg. One sentence stands out: “According to the UN’s own climate model, the difference between a world with all the promised Paris cuts and one without them is just 0.05C.”
So all the billions of dollars being spent on reducing carbon emissions and subsidising wind and solar power, is a waste of money.
Chas Barter, Lower Mitcham, Vic
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
How Australia’s electricity bills have increased over the past decade:
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
Australia’s electricity prices are now about 50% higher than the EU average:
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/55420cf15dfa2503836da884f416f5ac
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) – Electricity report details affordability, competition issues
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/electricity-report-details-affordability-competition-issues
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
We know what Lomberg is in favor of.
People
Lower chronic child malnutrition by 40%
Halve malaria infection
Reduce tuberculosis deaths by 90%
Avoid 1.1 million HIV infections through circumcision
Cut early death from chronic diseases by 1/3
Reduce newborn mortality by 70%
Increase immunization to reduce child deaths by 25%
Make family planning available to everyone
Eliminate violence against women and girls
Planet
Phase out fossil fuel subsidies
Halve coral reef loss
Tax pollution damage from energy
Cut indoor air pollution by 20%
Prosperity
Reduce trade restrictions (full Doha)
Improve gender equality in ownership, business and politics
Boost agricultural yield increase by 40%
Increase girls’ education by 2 years
Achieve universal primary education in sub-Saharan Africa
Triple preschool in sub-Saharan Africa
This is not remotely Peter Lang’s agenda. The former has a solid rationale – you may not like it but it is solidly documented. The latter focuses on distorting the reality of energy markets in Australia. We know what the sources of price rises are. Peter gives it himself.
Again this doesn’t register. It is always the evils of wind and solar that are his obsession. It is a policy for a non policy. I find it all outrageously disingenuous. And Lomberg cannot calculate future temps to 0.05 degrees. I think Peter needs a reality check.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
I include Matthew in the usual suspects.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Dope, you are a suspect. Over than Tsonis, the vast majority of the scientists you cite – Wong; Willis, McWilliams; Moy; etc. – think your selective knitting job adds up to complete bullchit.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
