Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Don Monfort

0
0

OK, I will give you some hints:

1) stand outside a doctor’s office and tell the folks coming and going that the doc is a quack

2) even better, stand outside a lawyer’s office and call him a shyster

3) accuse a scientist of intentionally concocting faux science

Last hint, you should apologize to Judith’s denizens for subjecting them to your stubborn ignorance.


Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Salvatore del Prete

0
0

Low solar equates to overall lower sea surface temperature due to less UV light which can be off up to 10% in extreme solar minimums.

Low solar equates to a slightly higher albedo due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays if the earth’s magnetic field is weakening which it is. This could result in greater cloud coverage which will cause an increase in albedo. In addition low solar is associated with an increase in MAJOR volcanic activity when the earth’s magnetic field is weakening, which is another way the albedo of the earth can be increased.

Low solar due to less EUV light can cause a more meridional atmospheric circulation which could increase the albedo due to promoting greater cloud/.snow coverage.
Lower sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo is what will govern the climate not CO2.

AGW THEORY IS A FRAUD PUT UPON THE PUBLIC WHICH IS GOING TO FALL FLAT ON IT’S FACE.

Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Jim D

0
0

Yes, you can see that in the graph. CO2 forcing rate tripled since then. No more cooling spells.

Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Jim D

0
0

Looks like the build up to El Nino dominated at that time, but that doesn’t mean the volcano didn’t have a strong ocean cooling effect in 1992.

Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Jeff Norman

0
0

I am curious about what happens to all the waste heat generated from all of our processes, including renewable energy generation. Has anyone ever calculated an equivalent W/m^2 for this.

Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Jim D

0
0

That’s the decade when the good CO2 measurements started. When looking at CO2 effects, skeptics have trouble believing values before 1950, so this is catering to you. But I also showed the Lovejoy plots back to 1750 with basically the same trend, so you can take your pick.

Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Jim D

0
0

You can take the last 100 million years with less uncertainty about other effects. This demonstrates the variation between hothouse and icehouse as CO2 levels dropped by several hundred ppm. You may still be in search for other explanations, but you won’t find any, as paleoclimate people already understand it in terms of the greenhouse effect. You’re going to attribute a political motive to those people too, I guess, but you need to look at their journal papers and textbooks first rather than just disliking their results.

Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Jim D

0
0

Thermodynamics tells you that the equilibrium vapor pressure over water is temperature dependent.


Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Jim D

0
0

It removes a fraction of a percent of the column water vapor, if that. Radiation still reacts to the other 99.9+%. It’s column water vapor that matters for its greenhouse effect, not just the surface value, of course.

Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Windchaser

0
0

1 — I can’t see what this has to do with whether there will be more clouds as it warms. Can you show that there will be more clouds if evaporation increases?

2 — You made the claim that the models don’t show a logarithmic connection, so you should back it up. (I thought I’d asked for a citation, but in my editing, I guess I accidentally deleted that. Anyways: citation, please?)

Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Nick Stokes

0
0

“Anything wrong with this? In particular the facts of it?”
Yes. You have no idea how the models work. They are physical models of flow and heat transpost. They are not statistical models. And they don’t model plant physiology. And their radiative models do work out to be logarithmic response to CO2.

Correlation with solar radiation is very poor. Solar has been going down for at least two cycles; CO2 and temperature just keep going up.

A rise of 0.8° in a few decades is indeed small relative to glaciation. But glaciation would have a ruinous effect on our civilisation, and so that is no argument that the effect of warming is trivial. And we’ve only burnt maybe a tenth of he carbon we could burn.

Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by Windchaser

0
0
<blockquote>Like a thermometer the ocean equilibrates quickly, thus there is no long term ocean warming. Sounds crazy (yes!), but why should it take decades/centuries to warm? (doesn’t kinetic energy move faster than that?)</blockquote> In water, no. Thermal diffusivity in water is pretty low, and most of the transport of thermal energy from the top few meters happens via the actual movement and mixing of the waters. (E.g., convection, not conduction). At some depth, the water is generally pretty stratified (this dividing line is called the "thermocline"). But still, even below there, heat conduction is still too slow to get down to the bottom of the ocean in relevant timescales, so you're just basically asking how long it takes to overturn the entire oceans. Centuries to millennia. The depth of the thermocline varies from about 200m to 1000m, so that's still a helluva lot of water that can be heated up in the next century or two, and which will slow down surface heating during that time. (For comparison, the average depth of the <i>entire</i> ocean is about 4000m). So, nah, the ocean equilibrates <i>really</i> slowly.

Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by popesclimatetheory

0
0

while there is very limited data on associated changes in Earth albedo

There is a lot of data on changes in Earth albedo.
Solar in is equal to IR out plus Albedo out. At the top of the atmosphere, that is all there is.

Historic temperatures have been obtained from ice cores and other proxies, and correlated with history records. IR out can be calculated from temperature. Albedo is equal to Solar in minus IR out. The albedo records are as good as the Solar in and temperature records.

Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by JCH

0
0

How deep was the Wong-Willis ocean?

Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by RiHo08

0
0

“I assume you are from Indiana”

You have cast me amongst the deplorables of the fly-over-states.

My mind is befuddled by self-contradicting language.

I am betwixt reason and madness.

Self-help lessons are of no avail.

And, BTW, the courts offer no solutions.


Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by popesclimatetheory

0
0

Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate

CERES data has solar in, IR out and albedo out. There is no measured and plotted imbalance chart. That only comes from flawed climate models.

Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by JCH

0
0

There is actually a reason why Roger Pielke thinks the heat content of the earth system is what is most important: jewels, jewels, and even more jewels.

The only place degrees C is useful is SST:

Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by popesclimatetheory

0
0

The history of criminal court cases that are decided based on expert witnesses is a dismal one. People were convicted, based on the consensus science of the day, and later proved not guilty based on different understanding of the science, years later.

Comment on What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth? by JCH

0
0

All I know is W was the irregardinator.

Comment on Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming by Javier

0
0

No, no. Not political motivation. I know scientists well and only a minority are politically motivated or activists. But that doesn’t mean that scientists cannot be wrong. It wasn’t political motivation what made nearly all doctors believe that ulcers were caused by stress. After all having an ulcer is a cause for stress. It was simply the prevailing idea at the time, as CO₂ is the prevailing idea now. Based both cases in a huge amount of circumstantial evidence, and high distrust to anybody trying to change the paradigm.

I’ve read the papers and books and it is all a house of cards. Built on the central idea that since we have observed warming at a time of increasing CO₂, and in this last case the increase of CO₂ cannot be due to the increase in temperature, then every change in temperature must be due to changes in CO₂. But the paloevidence is against that central idea. We know that for 5500 of the past 6000 years, CO₂ levels were increasing and temperatures decreasing. We know that the glacial cycle, the biggest climate change of the past several million years is not due to CO₂. When we go to more distant past we are just projecting our bias taking advantage of our lack of knowledge to fill the blanks.

It is not a coincidence that we are observing warming at a time of great CO₂ emissions, but not for the reasons usually accepted. Warming periods are good to human societies. Periods of increased civilization and increased knowledge. Periods of cooling are periods of stress to human societies. If we had burned the fossil fuels at a time of cooling we would not have embraced the CO₂-hypothesis, as CO₂ cannot turn a cooling period into a warming one.

Resistance to the CO₂-hypothesis is quite common. You can read it in many articles, sometimes between lines, not clearly expressed in a way that could be used by a skeptic, as being labelled as a skeptic carries a stiff penalization. If the next decade sees very little or no warming, as I expect, it is quite likely that we will see scientists openly divided on the CO₂-hypothesis. Then science will begin to advance again, as science cannot advance without disagreements.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images