Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


older | 1 | .... | 4059 | 4060 | (Page 4061) | 4062 | 4063 | .... | 4134 | newer

    0 0

    "This is why your number has to be divided by 0.64 to match the temperature change axis leaving a gradient of 1.64 C per 1000 GtC." No, the slope of the RCP6.0 line, from the origin to between the last two dots, has to be divided by the ratio of CO2 forcing to total forcing over the same period, which as I wrote is 0.88. I did so. That gives a CO2-only TCRE of marginally under 2 C, and which is 2.0 C to 1 d.p.

    0 0

    Or worse, the false imprisonment of Tommy Robinson in the UK for OBJECTIVE reporting of the facts of a case of public interest before a court of "justice." Now, I don't intend to hijack this thread, but as an American of Hungarian descent, I am moving there to defend freedom from EU-globalist oppression. My ancestors fought 200 years way back when, and then more than 50 more, more recently: and again...? Over my dead body!

    0 0

    JCH wrote to me:<blockquote>It’s even worse than that, so you must be almost as “stupidity” as Mann is. After the Pentagon Papers were released, the American public, knowing that there had been a break-in at the Democratic headquarters (the ties to Nixon where blaring like a fire alarm,) and knowing the contents of the Pentagon Papers release, still reelected Nixon in a landslide.</blockquote>Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is: I was simply pointing out that Mann and his pal really got the historical facts wrong in a way that they could have easily checked. They didn't. Proof that they are sloppy. Not good in terms of taking anything they say seriously at all. (And the Pentagon Papers reported on the actions of the Truman/Ike/JFK.LBJ Administrations: they were completed prior to Nixon's taking office and so had nothing at all to say about Nixon.) As to why Nixon was re-elected. Well, the whole period was very complicated: McGovern was a horrible candidate -- check out the Eagleton disaster or the "Demogrant" debacle if you want to see what I mean. I know a lot of people who hated Nixon but nonetheless voted for Nixon in '72 because McGovern seemed like a moron because of all the unforced errors in his campaign. Furthermore, there was a huge "culture war" at the time, and McGovern was tainted by association with many of his own supporters -- what you could call the "hippie factor," which is ironic since McGovern had been an Army Air Force pilot during WW II -- not a hippie at all. Also, the full truth about Watergate did not really hit the public until after the election. "Deep Throat" was feeding Woodward and Bernstein tidbits over many months, through and beyond the election. The Senate investigation did not begin until 1973. Anyway, most of us who were voters in 1972 (it was the first time I voted) knew we did not like Richard Nixon and knew that George McGovern had run a bizarrely disastrous campaign. It was not a pleasant choice. But, it was not until well after the election that we had the information that indicated that our President was indeed, in his words, a "crook."

    0 0

    Is intensify a science word? It will be hotter. That can be measured. Does the Nature headline mean El Ninos will be bigger? Perhaps faster developing or longer in duration. Or dropping from their peak in a shorter time. Droughts and rain will be more intense as how could it be otherwise? As the PETG drops it makes perfect sense that things will be more intense and not the more stable other way around. Things will get stuck without a strong differential to keep them moving along in an orderly non-intense way. A wrench thrown in the previous well oiled climate machine. Tisdale recently at WUWT commented on this increased intensity under climate change: https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2018/12/Figure-3.png As it warms for us, TMAX gets stuck and more intense by not going up as much as the average. If that's not more intense and tubular at the same time, I don't know what is?

    0 0

    […] a need for experts to disentangle disputed facts from identity-defining group commitments.” {See Curry’s article for more about this […]

    0 0

    […] a need for experts to disentangle disputed facts from identity-defining group commitments.” {See Curry’s article for more about this […]

    0 0

    And Bridget Bardot and etc etc etc. But this is Atomsk we're replying to who lives in the world of post-normal science and policy where our betters may both say and do things that they may flatly deny saying and doing five minutes later because "truth is relative"

    0 0

    I am always saddened when I hear such stories, since it causes me to reflect upon the extent to which the battle for moral high ground (or certitude if you prefer; they seem to be the same thing in practice) has turned the tables on the rationally-minded mainstream. Cliff Mass, by asserting that there is no need to attribute recent extreme weather events to climate change, in order to justify action to mitigate it, is actually making the bolder demand for action than those that do make such an attribution. And yet he is a denier. However, he is not a denier because he denies the threat of climate change, he is a denier because he refuses to join the clamour for a simple narrative that everyone can understand – a narrative that, by virtue of its simplicity, is gaining hegemony. With victory in their grasp, no-one is going to jeopardize the cause by allowing reason, sophistication and moderation into the debate.

    0 0

    Climate sensitivity to cumulative emissions suffers from a fatal statistics flaw. https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcre/ https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/03/tcruparody/ When that error is corrected, no sensitivity remains https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/14/climateaction/

    0 0

    I realize this is not Global Mean T and a dozen other reasons why it shouldn’t mean anything, but SM has indicated a very high correlation between NA and Global Temperatures (96%?)so why shouldn’t there be very high correlation between US TM and NA Mean T? SM has lectured us on how the 1930s were not as hot as current temperatures and they haven’t been adjusted downward. This appears all the anecdotal evidence of hot 1930s, (ignored by warmists)has some validity. But what do I know. Just because every contemporary account and history book said it was so, it cannot be unless SM and other warmists give it their blessing.

    0 0

    It has often been said by climate activists that the science of climate change is settled; that the voting public supports quick action against climate change; and that it's only been the opposition of fossil fuel interests and the politicians who support those interests which keeps America from quickly reducing its carbon emissions. Over on the Cliff Mass blog, this has been a recurrent theme for those climate activists who make a sport of denouncing his opinions. I've made the point there on that blog that the only possible means of substantially reducing America's carbon emissions within the timeframe climate activists are now seeking is to put a stiff price on all carbon fuels. And even this won't be enough. If America is to achieve an 80% reduction in our GHG emissions by 2050, a program of government-mandated carbon fuel rationing combined with strictly enforced energy conservation measures covering all sectors of the American economy must eventually be adopted. It is simply impossible to compress a hundred year's worth of technological and economic transition away from carbon fuels into a thirty year time span without experiencing major collateral impacts. The question arises, is new legislation from the Congress needed to pursue this kind of highly aggressive, nationally-enforced anti-carbon program? The answer is no. The Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA has full authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate America's carbon emissions; and further, that the process used by the EPA in 2009 to determine that CO2 is a pollutant was properly followed. The President and the EPA now have all the authority needed to pursue a highly aggressive anti-carbon policy, if they choose to do so. Here is a plan to reduce America's GHG emissions 80% by 2050 using the existing legal authorities of the President as enabled by the Clean Air Act and by existing national security legislation. This plan is similar to the one that was being pushed by 350.org and by other environmental groups in 2009. In this version, the original 350.org plan is augmented by a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon. Moreover, the plan adds a provisional system for imposing direct government control over production and distribution of all carbon fuels, if carbon pricing doesn't prove to be fully effective. <b>Phase I:</b> Establish a legal basis for regulating carbon dioxide and other carbon GHG's as pollutants. (2007-2012) -- File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of CO2 and other carbon GHG's as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. -- Publish a CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG's. -- Defend the Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts. <b>Phase II:</b> Expand and extend EPA regulation of carbon GHG's to all major sources of America's carbon emissions. (2021-2022) -- Issue a presidential executive order declaring a carbon pollution emergency. -- Publish a CAA Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009's Section 202 finding. -- Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution. -- Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America's tie-in to international climate change agreements. -- Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding and the NAAQS in the courts. <b>Phase III:</b> Establish a fully comprehensive EPA-managed regulatory framework for carbon. (2023-2025) -- Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, and 202. -- Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA's anti-carbon regulations. -- Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon. -- Establish the legal basis for assigning all revenues collected from carbon pollution fines to the states. -- Research and publish a provisional system of direct carbon fuel rationing as a backup to the carbon fine system. -- Defend the EPA's comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts. <b>Phase IV:</b> Implement the EPA's carbon pollution regulatory framework. (2026-2050) -- Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the EPA's anti-carbon regulations. -- Commence the collection of carbon pollution fines and the distribution of fine revenues to the states. -- Monitor the effectiveness of the carbon regulatory framework in reducing America's GHG emissions. -- Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America's GHG emissions lags. -- Assess the possible need for invoking the provisional system of direct carbon fuel rationing. -- Defend the EPA's system of carbon pollution regulations against emerging lawsuits. <b>Phase V:</b> Implement the provisional system for direct carbon fuel rationing. (Start/End contingent upon Phase IV progress.) -- Issue a presidential proclamation declaring that Phase IV anti-carbon measures cannot meet the 80% by 2050 target. -- Initiate the provisionally established system for imposing direct government control over production and distribution of all carbon fuels. -- Apply the Phase IV system of carbon pollution fines in escalating steps as needed to incentivize Phase V compliance. -- Defend the government-mandated carbon fuel rationing program in the courts. <b>Phase VI:</b> Declare success in reducing America's carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or earlier.) -- Assess the need for continuing the EPA's anti-carbon regulations and the US Government's mandatory fuel rationing program beyond 2050. -- Defend the government's anti-carbon measures against emerging lawsuits if these measures continue beyond 2050. <b>Remarks:</b> Phase I of this plan was complete in 2012. The legal foundation needed to impose aggressive across-the-board regulation of all major sources of America’s carbon emissions remains in place awaiting the appearance of a president willing to use it. When Barack Obama was Chief Executive, his Clean Power Plan and his other anti-carbon measures might have achieved possibly one-third of his Year 2050 GHG reduction goal. But the remainder depended upon a highly uncertain combination of accelerated technological advancement and raw unvarnished hope. And yet, when Barack Obama had the opportunity and the means to move forward with the 350.org plan, he refused to go through with it. Nor were 350.org itself and the other AGW activist groups willing to push hard for adoption of their 2009 plan after their initial victories in the courts. From 2012 onward, those activist groups could have worked closely with the EPA using the <em>'sue and settle'</em> process to put their 2009 plan into effect. Why didn't they didn't do it? Could it be that in 2012, President Obama, 350.org, and all the other anti-carbon environmental groups were afraid of massive political blowback if they had pushed for a program which can be highly effective in quickly reducing America's carbon emissions -- but at the expense of imposing great personal and economic sacrifice on most Americans?

    0 0

    Burl Henry Thanks for the link to https://www.ecns.cn/2017/11-10/28048.shtml, but it gives a 404 error. Can you give a working link that supports your 29.1 Megaton 2014-2016 decrease in Chinese SO2 emissions? I am certainly interested to see that. The ECLIPSEv5 data I have seen extends to 2015 and shows global emissions of ~99 Mt then, however that is only a small drop from its 2010 estimate of 102 Mt, which is well below the CEDs 2010 estimate. Unfortunately one can't simply compare the effects of anthropogenic SO2 emissions, which stay in the troposphere, with those from explosive volcanos, like Pinatuba, with reach the stratosphere. Aerosols only last in the troposphere for a few days; they quickly get cleared out by rain and other processes. But volcanic aerosols stay in the stratosphere for the order of a year. So 23 Mt of volcanic sulphate aerosols produce much more cooling than 23 Mt per annum, or 0.5 Mt per week, of anthropogenic sulphate aerosols, which will produce an average atmospheric sulphate burden of under 0.5 Mt.

    0 0

    Thoughts and prayers.

    0 0

    Cerescokid: Taking the above plot and this one: https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fberkeleyearth.lbl.gov%2Fauto%2FRegional%2FTMAX%2FFigures%2Fcontiguous-united-states-TMAX-Trend.png&f=1 It looks like the average went up but the TMAX hardly did. So while the distribution moved, there's something holding the upper extremes in place. Could be that 4th power thing of the Stefan–Boltzmann law. This is good for Minnesota. It does get hot here, sometimes 100 F with humidity and low winds. And we burn all kinds of natural gas heating our homes. If a system is pushed as the climate is by CO2, what happens to its temperature distribution? Before it may be more random. The push organizes it. It is not random when it is on the way to somewhere. It's accepted that the colds goes up more than the warms. The distribution tightens. What does such a thing mean for ENSO. More organization. Sea Ice: https://werme.bizland.com/werme/wuwt-images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png See how a strong annual signal emerges towards the end? Organizes.

    0 0

    If not for warmists, nobody would know the temperature of the great plains in the 1930s. Station just down the road from Dad's ranch: 120 F. Still tied for the hottest day in the state records. Why? Because my ancestors believed rain followed the plow. When their seedlings died an inch above the ground, they plowed their fields again, thinking rain would follow. In June they turned their fields of black dirt black, and they stayed black. Sun; black. Try it.

    0 0

    To suggest that there is no causal relation between greenhouse gases and atmospheric warming is fooling yourself in the Feynman sense. Something to be guarded against.

    0 0

    Don 132, I mostly agree with you. I love the term "Oreskian." I will start using it. Something new is happening. As the evidence for CAGW gets weaker, there is less tolerance for dissent. It is well funded and professional. It is mostly nonscientists but good writers. Take a good look sometime who is in these think tanks and research institutes.

    0 0

    Thank you Judith, you are making a difference.

    0 0

    “If not for warmists, nobody would know the temperature of the great plains in the 1930s.” That’s one of your more, let’s say, off kilter quotes. So all those who lived through it didn’t know? Those reporters who interviewed all those farmers and ranchers during that period didn’t know? All those who made documentaries in the 1950s didn’t know. Maybe I don’t understand your point. Or maybe you don’t have a point. It was common knowledge in the 1930s at the time it was happening. It wasn’t forgotten in the 1940s and 1950s when it was just part of all our education. Hot is hot with or without the most sophisticated thermometers. Maybe to the 1/10 of a degree they didn’t know. But they knew it was a lot hotter than the 1950s and 1960s.

    0 0

    I am reluctant to be critical of colleagues but the public “shaming” of Cliff Mass by his department has lowered the bar so far that I find it hard to be restrained. I am a former faculty member of the UW Atmospheric Sciences. I have maintained contact with the institution and the faculty over the years. Many of the faculty and staff I would count as friends. I have admired the accomplishments of the department as one of the best atmospheric science schools in the country. This admiration abruptly ended with the despicable behavior of the faculty towards one of its own. Cliff Mass is a most accomplished scientist and an “institution” in the Northwest. He is a person of integrity and a person who speaks his mind. Not everyone agrees with his point of view, and perhaps sometimes the forthright manner in which his opinion is delivered. But isn’t that what freedom of speech is all about? And isn’t the ability to make statement openly and freely the purpose and foundation of tenure? What is so disturbing is the use of the “the global warming hammer” to discredit Mass. The accusation is false as it turns out, but it is an easy weapon to swing especially in front of a receptive audience. Alas, I doubt we have seen the last of such shameful attacks. I do have two particular questions: Why did the Chair of the department go to such lengths to discredit and shame Cliff Mass? Was this inspired by an animus dominandi? After all, Cliff Mass is perhaps the best-known member of the faculty. The motivation of the Chair is puzzling! Second, where were the “adults” in the room? Why was there no objection by the senior faculty to Durran’s public hectoring? Why was there no insistence that Cliff Mass be heard and answer his accusers? It is hard for me to think that Jim Holton, Conway Leovy, Dick Reed, Bob Fleagle, Peter Hobbs …. would have allowed such a debacle to proceed. Perhaps the faculty were shell-shocked by the meeting. After a few days of deep breaths, the “adults”, and perhaps the university administration, may still gather courage to do something about the poor leadership of the Chair, publically apologize to Cliff Mass and return the department back on its proper course, although now, unfortunately, with its flag at half-mast. Peter Webster

older | 1 | .... | 4059 | 4060 | (Page 4061) | 4062 | 4063 | .... | 4134 | newer