Apologies Memphis, I must have missed the time when it happened.
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Michael
↧
↧
Comment on New Year’s resolution for scientists by Climatemonitor» Blog Archive » Politicizzazione della scienza: anno nuovo vita nuova.
[...] Pielke jr però, come del resto Judith Curry che ha a sua volta commentato questo articolo di Nature, pur vedendo con favore il fatto che questo [...]
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Montalbano
<blockquote>If the political authorities realised there was not a climate problem with increasing CO2…</blockquote>
They would carry on regardless with carbon taxes and the like.
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Tom
Michael, what happened to the Essenes, again? You missed something…
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by tempterrain
JIm Cripwell,
I’ll start this in a new spot as it was getting entangled in other comments.
You’ve asked if ” the IPCC [is] correct to claim that CAGW has been proven to a very high level indeed? ”
So I’m looking for some indication that the IPCC has used the word “catastrophic” and the term “proven to a very high level” in relation to each other. Or even if they have ever written anything at all which might lead you to think they believe this to be the case?
Lolwot commented that you were confusing the possibility of future catastrophic AGW with the attribution of past temperature rises. He’s exactly right in saying this, and you are equally wrong in claiming he’s introduced a red herring.
Can I just ask if you want a discussion on what the IPCC have actually written, or do you want to discuss what you, or some other denier, has falsely claimed they’ve written?
↧
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Bob Droege
Brandon,
You started off saying I was full of it and now you want me to respond to you in a substantial way, OK, here goes.
What statistical verification did MBH98 fail? Please be specific. You too are guilty of handwaving.
I looked at your Watts up post, and I see you are still flaming on the upside down tiljander series crap, care to prove they used it upside down?
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Memphis
Happens often enough; as someone preoccupied with spreading the consensus gospel, you’re obviously ignoring it so as not to disturb your current beliefs. And, like most of us, also to avoid timewasting.
Note also that views held by one or only a few people tend to get much less attention that those more widely held. We all only have limited time.
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by gbaikie
“OK Michael. You explain how the energy required to maintain a temperature of about 730K at the POLES of Venus gets there. There is no direct sunlight at any time, no convection and, without insolation, there would be no energy for back radiation.”
That’s a interesting question.
Venus axis is apparently at around 3 degrees:
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/vt-2004/Background/Infol2/EIS-D3.html
A question is how much of polar region of Venus would be in permanent darkness.
But I guess Micheal and others may think that as sunlight travels thru
the atmosphere of Venus, the solar energy heats the air.
Generally as air gets denser, it absorbs more sunlight.
According to Wiki:
“The pressure found on Venus’s surface is high enough that the supercritical carbon dioxide is technically no longer a gas, but a supercritical fluid. This supercritical carbon dioxide forms a kind of sea that cover the entire surface of Venus. This sea of supercritical carbon dioxide transfer heat very efficiently, buffering the temperature changes between night and day (which last 56 terrestrial days).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
“If the temperature and pressure are both increased from STP to be at or above the critical point for carbon dioxide, it can adopt properties midway between a gas and a liquid. More specifically, it behaves as a supercritical fluid above its critical temperature (304.25 K) and critical pressure (72.9 atm/7.39 MPa), expanding to fill its container like a gas but with a density like that of a liquid.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_carbon_dioxide
And:
“There is considerable work being done to develop a supercritical carbon dioxide closed-cycle gas turbine to operate at temperatures near 550 °C. This is a significant usage, which could have large implications for bulk thermal and nuclear generation of electricity, because the supercritical properties of carbon dioxide at above 500 °C and 20 MPa enable very high thermal efficiencies, approaching 45 percent. This could increase the electrical power produced per unit of fuel required by 40 percent or more.”
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Monk
As I understand it, vast amounts of money are spent on climate models, yet they are seemingly still useless .
At the same time, we have only a vague idea of the planet’s radiation budget, something that is absolutely essential to testing and quantifying AGW. If we knew this well enough, the debate would be largely settled (given that CO2 levels are thought to be well known).
Surely it would make sense to divert all/some of the money in models into improved technology for measuring the radiation budget ? Why is this not done? Is it because there are people high up who fear (and want to avoid) the issue becoming settled ?
↧
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Wagathon
The ’greatest generation’ had a lot better marketing. Society took care of them to the end. But these benighted ones with their climate delusions and hatred of capitalism have brought about a self-fulfilling prophesy: they say they want less for everyone and everyone will have less. Society probably can no longer provide for them from cradle to grave. There are too many of them who refuse to provide any value to society and free enterprise system that is founded on self-reliance and self-determination. They only want to dine out at Big Government Free Lunch cafeteria and no economy can continue to pull that amount of dead weight.
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Tom
The Bible, says the says the same; Michael.
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Sullivan
And how about also diverting money wasted on models into better measurement of ocean heat ? – another area that could help clear up the measurement of AGW theory if only we had robust empirical data.
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Wagathon
A study of the Earth’s albedo (project “Earthshine”) shows that the amount of reflected sunlight does not vary with increases in greenhouse gases. The “Earthshine” data shows that the Earth’s albedo fell up to 1997 and rose after 2001.
What was learned is that climate change is related to albedo, as a result of the change in the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the Earth. For example, fewer clouds means less reflectivity which results in a warmer Earth. And, this happened through about 1998. Conversely, more clouds means greater reflectivity which results in a cooler Earth. And this happened after 1998.
It is logical to presume that changes in Earth’s albedo are due to increases and decreases in low cloud cover, which in turn is related to the climate change that we have observed during the 20th Century, including the present global cooling. However, we see that climate variability over the same period is not related to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Obviously, the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or countervailing forces are at work that GCMs simply ignore. GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo. Accordingly, GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo has on the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth.
↧
↧
Comment on Trusting (?) the experts by Wagathon
God cliff–
The null hypothesis of AGW Theory has never been rejected, that all climate change can be explained by natural causes.
There is no scientific justification for some of the extremist economic and social penalties that a minority of zealots are trying to impose on the people of the world. ~Koutsoyiannis
…given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. (Ibid.)
… they are unable to predict weather beyond a week or two, yet in conjunction with the IPCC they presume to tell us what to expect over the next few decades. (Ibid.)
How could we reject a hypothetical model (e.g. one in which the climate sensitivity is very small), according to which the entire observed (past) variability is ‘internally generated natural variability’, while the response to change in external forces is negligible? (Ibid.)
↧
Comment on Draft U.S. Climate Assessment Report by Chad Wozniak
Dr. Curry -
I see you deleted my comment about the fraud evidenced in the assessment report. I submit that my comment WAS relevant to the CONTENT of that report. I could hardly imagine a more obvious exhibition of deception and disinformation than what is contained in this report. Lying with the object of getting research grant money is a CRIME. Let’s prosecute NOW!
↧
Comment on Draft U.S. Climate Assessment Report by Girma
In the end, the Tasmanian bushfires are a metaphor for the Green philosophy.
Misguided virtue, carried out with ruthless disregard for fairness, property rights or human consequences, leads to a totalitarian mindset in which the original goals are abandoned. Saving trees? Nah. More trees and wombats have been destroyed in the past week in Tasmania than ever were turned into floorboards for Tokyo.
It was all about destroying Gunns, and seizing political power. Well, congratulations Tasmania. Your Greens have delivered blackened graveyards where proud forests once stood.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Steven Mosher
Don, I’ve been waiting for you outside.
↧
↧
Comment on The costs of tackling or not tackling anthropogenic global warming by Faustino
Hi, I’ve only just seen this, I assume it’s addressed to Judith – if so, probably best to e-mail her at Georgia Tech – if not, I’m happy for you to quote my article here and my responses to comments on it. Michael Cunningham
↧
Comment on Draft U.S. Climate Assessment Report by Robert I Ellison
‘We use annual data (1850–2007) on greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4 and N2O) concentrations and forcings, as well as on forcings for aerosols (black carbon, reflective tropospheric aerosols). We also use annual data (1880–2007) on solar irradiance, water vapor (1880–2003) and global mean temperature (sea and land combined 1880–2007). These widely used secondary data are obtained from NASA-GISS (Hansen et al., 1999, 2001).’
I suppose they could use model temperature output – but even exquisitely tuned models are likely to lose considerable detail at annual scales. Untuned models will be all over the place. There is no advantage. The output of the tuned model by definition resembles the measured time series and it makes no difference how the tuned model gets there.
The point is to test for spurious correlation between data series. The details of the paper would take several weeks for me to digest – but I see FOMBS has thought about it in his usual deep and meaningful way.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Peter Lang
Perhaps the revelations about the honesty of the CAGW Alarmists should be summarised on the “Trusting the [CAGW Alarmists]” thread.
I replaced “Experts” because we all know what an expert is, don’t we?
Expert (definition): a drip under pressure.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
