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

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by manacker

0
0

Jim D

Let me address the points in your last two comments.

To your statement:

the instantaneous or transient response are much different from the final equilibrium response, which you realized is different and a long way in the future, but can’t seem to distinguish from the immediate response. As I said, the ocean warms more slowly, which should mean the RH won’t stay constant because if it gets warmer, but the water vapor stays the same, the RH goes down. I am surprised I have to explain this to you twice because it is quite basic, and I think most of the others reading this would have understood it the first time I mentioned it above.

You keep talking about climate “equilibrium”. This is a theoretical construct. Climate is never in “equilibrium”, locally, diurnally, seasonally, regionally or globally. It is always changing.

The long-term NOAA record since 1948 shows no increase in WV content with warming.

Paltridge et al. 2009 took a portion of this record starting in 1973, and also showed that WV increase did not match maintaining a constant RH with warming.

Independent observations by Minschwaner & Dessler 2004 showed that WV increase did not match maintaining a constant RH with warming.

IPCC states in AR4 WGI Ch.8, p.635:

New evidence from both observations and models has reinforced the conventional view of a roughly unchanged RH response to warming.

The empirical evidence cited above shows that this is not the case. Furthermore, there are lots of model studies, but no empirical data of which I am aware that show that WV increases with warming to maintain constant RH, as assumed by the IPCC models.

Regarding clouds you ask:

how do you explain the 90′s when it got warmer and clouds decreased? If you say that it got warmer because the clouds decreased (spontaneously, GCRs, or whatever), then why didn’t your negative feedback kick in and make it colder again?

We have gone through this once already.

Pallé et al. 2005 showed that from the 1980s to around 2000 low cloud cover decreased, decreasing Earth’s albedo and allowing more incoming SW radiation to reach the Earth’s surface, thereby causing warming.

This trend reversed itself around 2000, and low cloud cover increased again, increasing Earth’s albedo and blocking more incoming SW radiation from reaching the Earth’s surface, thereby causing cooling.

Whether or not the increased cloud cover after 2000 was a result of a “negative cloud feedback” (as observed over the tropics over shorter time periods by Spencer & Braswell 2007), or whether it was the result of another not yet understood natural mechanism, is a moot point.

At appears from the empirical evidence cited, that IPCC is on weak ground concerning its model predictions of strongly positive net cloud feedback and WV feedback based on maintaining constant RH with warming. And that was my point.

Max


Comment on Forthcoming Congressional Hearing by Bart R

0
0

Brandon Shollenberger | March 9, 2013 at 1:39 am |

You can’t spell Thursday without hurTs, but you can’t spell Tuesday without sueT.

A profound religious difference to be sure.

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by Tomcat

0
0

verytallguy
Yes Andrew, it’s much easier to ignore inconvenient facts than process them. if fact there’s a word for that
Denial.

The textbook example being denial of the Pause by the CAGW truebelievers.

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by manacker

0
0

Bart R

Forget the hyperbole about “giving aid and comfort to thieves”.

And silly side tracks about a “straw man” or “key vulnerabilities [which] are distributed on the backs of people who are not me and whom I do not pretend to speak for”.

Your rather curious, self-centered rant below did not add anything, either:

“Risk is personal to me. I have lost something due this Risk being shoved unasked down my throat without compensation. Risk can be calculated in dollars and cents. That’s money taken from me. It’s my money. I want it back.”

I simply listed the IPCC “CAGW” premise, as IPCC has outlined it in its AR4 report.

- Is there any part of that, which you do not understand?

- Is there any part of that, which you feel IPCC has not claimed?

If so, get real specific, and don’t just come back with silly side tracks or personal rants.

Max

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by Bart R

0
0

Jim Cripwell | March 7, 2013 at 9:11 am |

IPCC admitted errors:

1. Admission the Himilayan glacier retreat claim was an error sourced in gray literature and mainly hinging on transposition of two digits in the year 2350 to say 2035.

2. Admission the Arctic sea ice projections were too conservative.

3..

Every IPCC report points out errors, omissions, failings, and faults in previous IPCC reports. Frequently, the reports themselves point to doubt, uncertainty, unknowns and likely shortcomings in themselves.

Your turn. Tell us when you’ve been wrong.

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by Tomcat

0
0
<i>Pekka: Some of the skeptics (like Max as one example) are ready to use anything as support of their skepticism.</i> So becoming more and more like the IPCC and other activist groups. Very sad.

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by Bart R

0
0

manacker | March 9, 2013 at 3:22 am |

Wow. Talk about grasping at straws.

I’ve identified my interest in RAGW, and my relative disinterest in KAGW with tacit agreement its conclusions are very likely correct, and my complete disinterest in CAGW.

What’s your interest in only talking about the least relevant and least interesting of these? What’s your personal tie to the thieves who impose Risk on me, and cost me money? What’s your stake in this discussion? What’s your standing to make an argument on any side?

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by Tomcat

0
0

AFMD : Mann-style ‘Hockey Stick’ that is strikingly evident in the paleo data?

Mental typo, you obviously meant “absent” rather than “evident”.


Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by Tomcat

0
0

Mosh, precis : if you are trying to develop replacement, faster less complex models, you do your first benchmarks against the thing you hope to replace.

So if the new fast ones are closer to reality/observations, but conflict with the older models, we’ll never know this and they’ll just be ditched ? Or corrupted till they toe the consensus line.

Comment on Blog commenting etiquette by web center

0
0

This si the way to increase the knowledge of any one i think This is Enough to know.

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by Tomcat

0
0

Fan : Manacker cut-and-pastes “[six worn-out talking-points of climate-change denialism]“

For “worn-out”, read “something Fan knows full well is unanswerable”.

A point Fan drives home by failing to even attempt any answers, preferring to deflect attention elsewhere.

Comment on Another Hockey Stick by web center

0
0

Best Information you have shared Dear, it is very helpfull for me in my webcenter. thanks

Comment on Another Hockey Stick by web center

0
0

I also want to reffer my other Friends of web center to visit thsi page.

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by manacker

0
0

Bart R

It appears that rational debate with you on the topic of CAGW as outlined by IPCC in AR4 is not possible, as you appear to get too emotional about “thieves imposing risk on you, costing you money”.

OK.

Let’s leave the discussion.

Wouldn’t want you to blow a fuse.

Max

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by BatedBreath

0
0

Fan seems to take a very dim view of America’s future.

Unless its citizens are gullible and fickle enough to buy the obviously rigged climate “science” produced by their goverment’s stooge scientists, and descend into EU-style totalitarianism of Obamacare etc, his prayers (dressed up as predictions, with all the finesse of lipstick on a pig), are that they will come to naught.


Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by manacker

0
0

pokerguy

I think fan is on something, but it “ain’t called ‘payroll’”.

Max

Comment on Time for some optimism about the climate crisis (?) by Wagathon

0
0

Our ancestors coped with mammoth ice ages, droughts which depopulated whole countries, spreading deserts of Saharan magnitude and floods of biblical proportions. Those who sat and sacrificed their substance on fantasies such as ‘Global Warming’ perished and left no descendants. Those with the sense to adapt to the changed climates by migration, new food sources, better technology and more productive lifestyles survived.

None of our ancestors were led to survival by high priests in green robes with computer models chanting anti-energy and anti-food slogans.

Never before have we seen a whole generation of western leaders in politics, media, education, academia and big business so cushioned by prosperity, and so mesmerized by pagan nature-worship that they have lost sight of what created and maintains human existence.” (Viv Forbes)

Comment on Direct Statistical Simulation by manacker

0
0

Bart R

Thanks for your dissertation.

“Risks and Key Vulnerabilities” sounds like a good alias for CAGW, and you’ve just stated that, in your opinion, “what AR4 said about Risks and Key Vulnerabilities by all appearances is all in all much too conservative”.

This tells me that you have concluded that the potential threat to humanity and our environment as outlined by IPCC in AR4 (a.k.a. CAGW) has been understated by IPCC:

“the far more likely conclusion is the IPCC AR4 was either right, or didn’t go far enough”

Thanks for clarifying your opinion on this.

It obviously does not agree with mine, but I suppose we simply have to agree to disagree.

Your last sentence leaves me puzzled, however:

“And Risk costs me money. I’m not kidding. I want my money.”

How has this “Risk” cost you money?

Who has extracted this “money” from you and how?

From whom do you want this money back?

How are you planning to get it back?

(Just curious).

Max

Comment on Time for some optimism about the climate crisis (?) by manacker

0
0

Bart R

I recognize I’m hardly more credible than Freeman Dyson.

Huh?

Don’t fool yourself, Bart.

You are a helluva lot less credible than Freeman Dyson.

Max

Comment on Time for some optimism about the climate crisis (?) by Latimer Alder

0
0

+1

Great quote.

Its becoming more and more obvious that CAGW is just another doomsday cult with a bit of ‘sciency ‘ thrown in.

And like all such cults…when the world doesn’t actually end, the proponents have to find more and more unlikely reasons to explain away this unhappy fact.

Today’s is that all the ‘missing heat’ is hiding in the deep ocean where (very conveniently) we can’t observe or measure it. And that it somehow gets there by avoiding all our surface level instruments.

No physical mechanism has been proposed for this ‘unusual’ form of heat transfer. Perhaps it is a new form of the climatological exclusive ‘teleconnections’?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images