Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by lolwot

$
0
0

So Easterbrook is still pushing his false GISP2 ice core graph.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/validity-of-a-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-years/

It’s funny that despite all the skeptics whining about chartmanship and graphs they have been totally unable to stop the likes of Easterbrook pushing this zombie argument. Are we to believe none of them spot the problem?

The issue here is that the GISP2 ice core data ends in 1855. To bring it to the present day so that he can compare the present day to the rest of the holocene, Easterbrook adds just 0.5C warming to the end of the graph.

What staggering is that he’s even supplied 20th century greenland temperature graphs in figure 2 which show about 3C warming since 1855. Not 0.5C as he’s plotted. His present day is thus more than 2C too cool.

If he plotted that extra warming he’d find his words coming back to haunt him as GISP2 actually conrifmed Marcott’s conclusion that “Current global temperatures of the past decade … are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.”


Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

Not bad, but this is better:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:2/derivative/mean:4/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

What the WfT “ISOLATE” function does is remove any residual signal from local trends within the time span provided.
What is left is any differential change ascribed to seasonal outgassing of the oceans.

So I added the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 and compared that to the seasonal temperature fluctuations.
\frac{d[CO_2]}{dt} \sim k \cdot T(t)

This is a substantiation of what some people call the Arrhenius rate laws governing outgassing, associated with other laws such as Clausius-Clapeyrone and Henry’s law.

It is a minor yet real effect that contributes a weak (at low temperature changes) to moderate (at high temperature changes) positive feedback to climate sensitivity. The activation energy is in around 0.2 eV which I include in my own model of global warming.

CMS, my question to you is: Do you understand this stuff? I can never tell when someone is throwing out info to contribute to FUD, or is asking a serious question in places where their knowledge is limited.

Comment on Open thread weekend by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

Another Aussie who needs a mirror.

Try Shermer’s website http://www.skeptic.com/
and see how you fit in.

Granted, a lot of the stuff debunks CoastToCoastAM type of krank theories, but it has always been a good resource for the latest and as an overview.

You won’t find anything on skeptic.com trying to debunk such direct scientific phenomenon such as AGW and Peak Oil, because there is no need to. The science supports it, so Shermer and company supports it.

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Jim Cripwell

$
0
0

lolwot, you write “Devils advocate here. What empirical evidence do you have for this claim? ”
Good question. I do not have positive empirical evidence. All I have is negative empirical evidence. I cannot prove that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. All I can say is that I cannot find one, and no-one has been able to demonstrate to me that a CO2 signal exists. If you can show me the CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph, then I would be forced to admit that it exists,

Comment on Open thread weekend by Latimer Alder

$
0
0

@web hub telescope

Thanks for the extended commercial fro your wonderful work.

Those of us who didn’t already know just how clever (and how modest) you are will no doubt be suitably impressed by the range of your abilities, the breadth of your correspondence and the intellect on display.

But we’ve heard similar stuff from you before…and none of it has ever seen the light of day.

Putting my ‘sceptical’ hat firmly on, will we get to ever see this new venture? Should I be holding my breath – or waiting to buy copies with my first pension cheque in a decade or two?

PS: Submitting papers to peer-reviewed journals is not a very difficult achievement. Getting them accepted and published is a tad harder. Having worthwhile content quite a lot tougher than either.

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by manacker

$
0
0

Tony B

You ask Fanny:

What caused the sea level rise prior to the current sea level rise?

This is the wrong question to ask Fanny.

Let me explain.

As a Hansen groupie, Fanny knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there could not have been accelerated sea level rise prior to industrial human CO2c emissions.

Hansen has explained it clearly for his faithful followers: human CO2 is the cause of all “deleterious” climate change leading to sea level rise “that can be measured in meters”.

And if you haven’t seen it yet, it’s simply because it’s still “hidden in the pipeline”, waiting for a blast of the heavenly trumpets to come rushing out and fry us all, defying all the laws of thermodynamics along the way.

(Who needs “thermodynamics” when we’ve got prophets warning us of “tipping points” and “runaway Venus effects”?)

IOW, accelerated sea level rise prior to industrial human CO2 emissions.
is just not POSSIBLE.

So how can Fanny explain something than cannot have been possible?

Max

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

Cripwell says:

“All I have is negative empirical evidence. I cannot prove that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. All I can say is that I cannot find one,”

That has to take the cake. First of all, that would not be called negative evidence, it would be referred to as inconclusive evidence.

Secondly, this completely subverts your upthread statement that

“I have always maintained that AGW is real.”

You can’t have it both ways. To maintain that AGW is real means that you have to accept that a CO2 signal exists. If you don’t accept this, then what else is causing the AGW that you seem to believe in?

You are in a trick-box Cripwell, and there is no escaping it. Your buddy Myrrrhhh at least has the kourage of his krackpot konvictions and simply says all accepted science is garbage. You two have different approaches to pranking us, but it contributes equal amounts of FUD. Nice teamwork.

Comment on Open thread weekend by omanuel


Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by manacker

$
0
0

lolwot

Naw.

It’s the GISP2 curve itself (not an Easterbrook rehash) that tells us we are still below the MWP warming today and well below that of the Roman Optimum and earlier warm periods.

Here is the GISP2 curve according to Wiki.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GISP2_ice_core_eng.svg

We see from the curve:

-1.2C “present” (=1993, when study was made)
-1.8C LIA low
-0.5C MWP high
-1.2C Dark Ages low
+0.5 Roman Optimum high

Splicing real-life thermometer annual data to ice core stuff is dicey, but let’s have a go anyway.

Since 1993 we have observed around 0.5C warming, which would put us today at:

-1.2C +0.5C = -0.7C

So we are still 0.2C below the MWP high and a full 1.2C below the Roman Optimum high today.

For a good summary, see Kobashi et al. 2011 (bold type by me).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049444/abstract

we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100.

So we’re not there yet, lolwot, even though the models tell us we might get there by the end of this century.

(Yawn!)

You can calm down again.

And so can the hapless polar bears who did just fine during those earlier warmer times, thank you.

Max

Comment on Open thread weekend by climatereason

$
0
0

As this is an open thread I’d like to ask a question..

From my research there appears to be tentative evidence that some of the weather we are experiencing (in the UK) has similarities to that which occurred at the start of the Little Ice age episodes. The descriptions of weather observations in the 17th and 14th centuries often seemed to suggest a jet stream that was not in its usual position, thereby letting in weather systems on a regular basis that we here in the UK normally only see once in a while, with the upshot of colder/more disturbed weather than we normally see.

Is there any evidence at all that the jet stream may have any relationship to sun spot levels/magnetic activity?

Here is the met office graph showing our sharp decline in temperatures over the last decade whereby our long slow temperature rise seems to have (temporarily?) stopped and reversed.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

tonyb

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Jim D

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by lolwot

$
0
0

Jim: “Good question. I do not have positive empirical evidence.”

So surely by the very standards of evidence you insist on, you shouldn’t have stated that when CO2 is added to the atmosphere from current levels, it causes global temperatures to rise.

According to your own rules you can’t believe that.

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Marc

$
0
0

I doubt even he knows what he aims to do — dysfunction is a force of it’s own. I’m sure I will stay engaged, but propaganda is winning, and there is no historical reason to believe this mass foray will end any better than previous ones — i.e., the cataclysmic destruction of human life by other humans. It is sadly “in our nature” and I fear ineluctable.

I don’t think they understand that we will take our chances for now with a highly unpredictable outcome of the future climate compared with the utterly predictable destruction and catastrophe that will result from this totalitarian course of demagoguery, fear-mongering and lying which arises from the human character’s weakness for the love of power.

P.S. Obviously, I meant ad hominem (not ad nominee) above, my iPad autocorrected a typo.

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

I appreciate Springer’s almost plausible argument. He is claiming water will evaporate directly from infrared radiation without raising its temperature.

An individual molecule can only directly vaporize from an absorbed photon if that photon possesses enough energy to transfer to the molecule so that it can overcome the heat of vaporization barrier.

On the other hand, a thermal bath works in a statistical mechanical fashion, and it is only enough that a Boltzmann factor is applied to ensembles of water molecules to determine the probability of a single molecule leaving the surface. This leads to the Clausius-Clapeyrone law and Henry’s law.

The infrared photons that dominate the downwelling spectrum are all individually less energetic than the heat of vaporization required. Therefore, the infrared radiation transfers it energy to vibrational and rotational states of the liquid water, and that thermal energy can diffuse away from the surface, thus raising the temperature of the water both near the surface and below it through diffusion, eddy diffusion and convection. This temperature rise allows the water to evaporate through Boltzmann (aka Arrhenius) activation.

Springer is sounding more like Myrrrhhh.

Comment on Open thread weekend by kim

$
0
0

I strongly suspect something causal to both sunspots fading out of the visible spectrum and the sun’s effect on climate, but I have no mechanisms and dozens of speculations. The ratio is poor and hasn’t changed in years.
==================


Comment on Open thread weekend by A fan of *MORE* discourse

$
0
0

BREAKING NEWS (literally)

Art inspired by
the Disintegration of the Arctic Ice Cap

  Out flew the web and floated wide
    The mirror crack’d from side to side;
      ”The curse is come upon me,” cried
        The Lady of Shalott.

  In the stormy eastwind straining
    The pale-yellow woods were waning,
        The broad stream in his banks complaining,
          Heavily the low sky raining
          Over towered Camelot:

Readers of Neven’s Arctic Sea Ice Weblog will appreciate this poetic/artistic/scientific coupling.

——————–

CAVEAT  The small-but-vocal minority of Climate Etc readers who prefer to remain ignorant of the climate-change science as embraced by the world’s scientists, engineers, mathematicians, philosophers, theologians, military strategists, and poets … can sustain their peace-of-mind by resolutely ignoring all of the above art-math-and-science!

\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Jim D

$
0
0

manacker, it means that the proponents of natural variability have to find something with this exponential-like shape over the last century or so, or maybe it is a less than quarter-wavelength section of some new multi-century several-degree oscillation that hasn’t been noticed before(?) but certainly looks well defined in this part of the record.

Comment on Open thread weekend by vukcevic

$
0
0

Hi Gates
Long time, no see.
Interesting read but wrong ending
From solar-induced variations of cosmogenic isotopes over the past 104 years, Lockwood [61] has deduced there is an 8% chance that the Sun will return to Maunder minimum conditions within 50 years. Feulner and Rahmstorf [289] used a coupled model to predict that this will offset anthropogenically rising global mean temperatures by no more than 0.3°C in the year 2100, relative to what would happen if the solar output remained constant.
I have read most of the relevant and the irrelevant web available (TSI, solar magnetic etc), and can state with a high degree of ‘presumptuous’ confidence that:
the current understanding of the solar magnetic input as related to the climate variability is not at the level where any meaning conclusions can be formulated, btw. Svensmark hypothesis although the most advanced is no exception.

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Jim D

$
0
0

manacker, the 60-year smoothed curve is robust over the last century or so, and, I would suggest, a good predictor of what future smoothed temperatures would look like if extrapolated. Its only feature in the last century is an increasing gradient, which is a good match to what GHGs should be doing.

Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by manacker

$
0
0

Jim D

You write:

it means that the proponents of natural variability have to find something with this exponential-like shape over the last century or so, or maybe it is a less than quarter-wavelength section of some new multi-century several-degree oscillation that hasn’t been noticed before(?) but certainly looks well defined in this part of the record.

This may be true for the ” proponents of natural variability” (as the cause for past warming), but does not apply to those (like Jim Cripwell and me) who are rationally skeptical of the CAGW hypothesis.

As “rational skeptics”, all we have to do is insist on empirical evidence to support any hypothesis of what has caused past warming and what the impact of this forcing is likely to be in the future.

And this empirical evidence is lacking, so far.

It is lacking for AGW, as it is lacking for natural variability (although non-anthropogenic factors is obviously the “null hypothesis”)

Your curve of correlation of 60-year averaged temperatures with a curve of observed CO2 concentrations that really only begins after 1959 shows a nice correlation after enough smoothing, but is no empirical evidence of anything (as I am sure you recognize).

It is up to the proponents of the CAGW premise, to support this premise with empirical evidence, not the other way around.

That’s the way it works, Jim.

It’s called the “scientific method”.

Max

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images