Articles on this Page
- 12/12/18--17:02: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--17:04: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/12/18--17:06: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/12/18--17:11: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--17:21: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--18:09: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--18:51: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/12/18--18:57: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--19:46: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--20:20: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--20:24: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--20:24: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--21:47: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--21:50: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--22:02: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--22:03: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--00:25: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--00:55: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--01:59: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/13/18--02:42: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/12/18--17:04: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
- 12/12/18--17:06: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
- 12/12/18--18:51: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
- 12/13/18--01:59: Comment on Cliff Mass: victim of academic political bullying by Don1
Th thing bout bullies is that they tend t end up in a ditch. Think hard before bullying. If ya call someone a "denier", yer a dangerous religious fanatic, and u will be watched. Ifn ya accuse "racism" when th accused has said nothing about race, yer a fukn ree-tard. Combine ree-tardation w religious fanaticism, then your chances o meetin th ditch double Think bout it, commies. Think hard.
Greening great. Droughts, floods, heatwaves, disease, famine, rising sea levels, not so much.
They did not say it was fuzzy enough to wipe out the hockey stick. The blade is also supported by thermometers.
Hans, that is a ridiculous argument. It is a physical fact - law - that warmed water outgasses CO2.
From <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm" rel="nofollow">Columbia</a>: "Because of the role of CO2 in climate, feedbacks in the carbon cycle act to maintain global temperatures within certain bounds so that the climate never gets too hot or too cold to support life on Earth. The process is a large-scale example of LeChatelier's Principle."
This is wrong. CO2 doesn't carry heat back into the ocean. How does the tiny CO2 % do all the following simultaneously:
(1) be outgassed by the ocean and accumulate in the air
(2) be consumed as plant food
(3) and pump heat back into the whole ocean warming it to great depths
How can 0.04% of the air do all that together at the same time? It doesn't.
It is absolutely obvious from my fig 12 that the CO2 in the atmosphere is accumulating from ocean warming making MME basically negligible.
This is just more stupid religious extremism and to think that they are encouraging more of these fanatics all around the world is a real problem.
This could/should be countered by a series of proper debates, but these people understand clearly that they would lose in the long run and would fight tooth and nail to avoid this free exchange of ideas.
Many of their more loopy and extreme claims don't even pass the pub test.
I don't know what it is, but it's weird.
It has the fingerprints of professional PR work that specializes in filtering out narratives to the media and other outlets, which is essentially what all PR firms do. It seems to me that this is the real reason that 97% of people who are left of center believe that catastrophic climate change is indisputable, and that all skeptics are depraved.
The weirdness is so weird that it doesn't seem to be just random weirdness, but maybe that's just me.
There are lots of PR firms out there that specialize in shaping public opinion and in working behind the scenes. They get paid well for doing so.
The Galileo analogy was this. Until Galileo, it was just theoretical (Copernicus), but he came along with observations and the scientists accepted it as evidence, but the establishment (religion) did not. Darwin had a similar difficulty when we brought observations in as evidence of evolution. Now we are here with observations of CO2 and decadal temperature having a .99 correlation over the past half century or so. Things are fine while they are theoretical, but when observations start to support the science, look at the resistance build in some quarters with alterior interests. They attack the messenger.
angech, you own quote said it was a prediction from GCMs. Did you quote Held by mistake?
Annual Global Anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions are currently available for each country for the years 1750-2014, and are currently being tracked by the CEDS team at the University of Maryland : http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/CEDS/ , and at https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018-supplement [for the actual SO2 data which I have cited (except for the 2015-2016 data gleaned from other reports]
Reductions in SO2 aerosol emissions cause WARMING, not cooling as you have stated.
The "Climate Sensitivity Factor" for changes in SO2 aerosol emissions is ~.02 deg. of change for each net Megaton of change in annual global SO2 . aerosol emissions, either volcanic or anthropogenic.
Thus, the ~38 Megaton reduction in emissions x .02 gives an expected temperature rise of 0.76 deg. C (+ ~.05 deg. C. of natural recovery, for the decade, from the LIA cooling).
If I may? Please do not use this blog post as your permission to start harassing any of the people named in it. At this point Dr. Curry has already capably laid out the facts and the conclusions to be drawn, and Dr. Curry has the moral high ground. If you feel the need to threaten or call people vile names, you're no better than some of the people highlighted in the OP. And in my experience, Dr. Myhre has a point about sexism in STEM, which Dr. Curry has also written about, so don't be That Guy who has to go prove her point for her. Keep it civil, keep it about the facts.
Why, oh why, does Dr. Myhre insist on attacking non-deniers as deniers (Mass, Curry, perhaps others)? Why does she never argue data or method, relying instead only on obvious fallacies such as appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, ad hominem, ad populum, etc.? I think the answer is that she values narrative over truth to advance AGW Manichaeism. As a student of history, I keep thinking of the Committee of Public Safety, Leninist and Stalinist purges, and the infighting among the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War: all ended badly for precisely this type of insistence on purity of thought.
Part of her method is to use the rhetoric of faux feminism (faux because I don't believe all feminists act this way -- perhaps there is a better way to say it?) to turn any dispute away from science and towards her identity as a woman. Even if you don't introduce gender into the discussion, she and her followers will call you "abusive" and "misogynist" and accuse you of many unfalsifiable things because this is the only tool in their toolkit. Take for example if I were to label her responses "immature": that could be used to launch an attack from the very true premise that men have routinely sidelined women with such rhetorical tricks to undermine their self-confidence and eventually push them out of STEM through one of the holes in the leaky pipe. However, sometimes a behavior has a proper name and should be identified as such, regardless of the gender of the person thus described. For example, I would call Dr. Curry's tone mature and Dr. Mann's immature, so it's not a male v female observation. I disagree with Dr. Mass' conclusion about wildfires, yet I would call his blog post mature, so it's not that I only label things with which I agree one way and vice versa. She therefore jumps from a true premise (historic misogyny) to untrue or irrelevant conclusions (someone is attacking her because she's a woman, nevermind that she may have started it and that the other person's argument is completely gender neutral). This allows her to avoid having substantive discussions with people who disagree with her and simultaneously to assume the role of victim. It happens to be a self-perpetuating narrative she can tell herself: "I am acting righteously in attacking these heretics, they are attacking me for acting righteously, and thereby they confirm my righteousness."
Definition of bigotry
1 : obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices
Never occurred to me before how much bigotry there is in the climate change "debate". And I put that word in quotes because there is none and the reason is bigotry.
Most unforgivably, Mass broke with the progressive activists in terms of not supporting the latest carbon fee initiative in Washington, I-1631...
And that, presumably, was before the Paris riots– sounds like a scientifically prudent fellow with honor and integrity and deserving of the presumption that, “any good scientist ought to be a skeptic,” and undoubtedly would also share Dr. Freeman Dyson's belief that, "environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion,” and that scientists must rediscover how real science is done.
Reblogged this on <a href="https://hifast.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/climate-sensitivity-to-cumulative-carbon-emissions/" rel="nofollow">Climate Collections</a>.
UW wouldn't back up Elizabeth Loftus when she was under fire there for criticizing the Recovered Memory movement, now quiescent under the treat of lawsuits. (Another witch hunt that establishment liberals quailed from criticizing.) So she moved to a school in SoCal.
Eliminating federally backed student loans would be a good first step to cutting back on these aeries of the anointed. Even better would be a law forbidding employers from taking college graduation into account when hiring prospects. Enrollment would drop 50%.
[…] “Cliff Mass: victim of academic political bullying“ […]
"This could/should be countered by a series of proper debates"
Now is the time for Trump to allow the EPA and Koonin to stage such debates. The time is ripe.
(These should be a series of private, narrowly focused debates similar to the debates on the Dutch Climate Dialog site, to clear the ground, and then a lengthy, multi-pass, shorter series of tag-team debates on the big questions, such as how affordable are renewables, how good is the temperature record, etc.)
"Your assumption was 64% for the historical period, so your BAU would also be 64% through to 1000 GtC."
Not so. Under RCP6.0, which is the closest scenario to BAU (RCP8.5 is clearly unrealistic, and never was a BAU scenario in the first place), 88% of total forcing (and hence total warming) is projected to be from CO2 between 1861-80 and 2090-99. The position is similar under RCP4.5.
But in any case TCRE has no meaning for non-CO2 forcing. Unlike for CO2, for other emissions the forcing at the end of a multidecadal or multicentennial period has no direct link to the cumulative emissions over that period. For CH4, forcing is primarily determined by emissions in the previous decade or so, while for aerosols only emissions in the last week or so really matter.
Cool: Let me summarize your graph. Over the last century, rise in CO2 in the atmosphere per year has gradually climbed from about 1 to 2.5 ppm/yr +/- a variable factor X that ranges from about +1 to -1 ppm/yr. Ocean temperature has gradually risen about 0.1 K/yr, +/- a variable factor Y, that ranges from +0.1 to -0.1. There is a correlation between X land Y, with X lagging slightly behind Y. The ratio X/Y is about 10 ppm/K. In other words, each 0.1 K temperature variability results in outgassing of 1 ppm of CO2 from the mixed layer of the ocean - the only part of the ocean that can produce these swings in CO2. On this basis, one might expect outgassing to have added about 5 ppm of CO2 NET to the atmosphere.
As the ocean warmed about 5 K - at the surface - at the end of the last ice age, the entire ocean out-gassed about 100 ppm of CO2. That is about 20 ppm/K from the entire ocean. The entire depth of the ocean didn't warm 5 K. It is fairly surprising to me that the entire ocean only out-gasses about twice as much per K of warming as the mixed layer.
During the LIA, CO2 in ice cores shows very little change, perhaps decreasing 5 ppm. If one estimates an 0.5 degK for cooling during the LIA, we are in the 10 ppm/K range.
These values suggest that attribution the bulk of the 125 ppm CO2 rise to less than 1 K of warming is absurd.
Many in the scientific community - and elsewhere - have lost their way ... uninterested in truth if it conflicts with the global warming narrative/industry.
Thank you again, Judith. Give 'em curry.
Noted, thank you. I have now added a new version of Figure 2. See update at the bottom of the article, before the endnotes.