Articles on this Page
- 12/18/18--12:57: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/18/18--18:17: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/18/18--21:55: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/18/18--22:00: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/18/18--23:20: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/18/18--23:58: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/19/18--06:34: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--06:37: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--08:19: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--09:29: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--10:27: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/19/18--10:30: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--10:49: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--13:06: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--16:30: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--16:43: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--17:29: _ Comment on Cli...
- 12/19/18--17:40: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--18:08: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--18:09: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/19/18--06:34: Comment on Week in review – science edition by ozonebust
- 12/19/18--06:37: Comment on Week in review – science edition by ptolemy2
- 12/19/18--08:19: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 12/19/18--09:29: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
- 12/19/18--10:27: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/19/18--10:30: Comment on Week in review – science edition by rtj1211
- 12/19/18--10:49: Comment on Week in review – science edition by andywest2012
- 12/19/18--16:30: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/19/18--16:43: Comment on Week in review – science edition by angech
- 12/19/18--17:40: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/19/18--18:08: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/19/18--18:09: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
I’ll plow this plowed ground and beat this dead horse yet some more. Maybe somebody will step up and ‘splain scientifically how/why I’ve got it wrong - or not.
Radiative Green House Effect theory (TFK_bams09):
1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere, RGHE’s only reason to even exist – rubbish. (simple observation & Nikolov & Kramm)
But how, exactly is that supposed to work?
2) There is a 100% efficient 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” perpetual energy loop consisting of the 0.04% GHG’s that absorbs/”traps”/re-emits per QED simultaneously warming BOTH the atmosphere and the surface. - Good trick, too bad it’s not real, thermodynamic nonsense.
And where does this magical GHG energy loop first get that energy?
3) From the 16 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 S-B 1.0 ε ideal theoretical BB radiation upwelling from the surface. – which due to the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the atmospheric molecules is simply not possible.
No BB upwelling & no GHG energy loop & no 33 C warmer means no RGHE theory & no CO2 warming & no man caused climate change.
Got science? Bring it!!
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78, CO PE 22774
Experiments in the classical style:
No 33 C and K-T
1 .My "wild guesses" pass Karl Popper's dictum that "scientific theories must be falsifiable (that is, empirically testable), and that prediction was the gold standard for their validation". Unlike the "greenhouse gas" hypothesis, this "model"--which simply points out that changes in SO2 aerosol emissions explain the cause of the formation of all La Ninas and El Ninos, and the anomalous global warming that has occurred since circa 1975 --meets both criteria.
It is empirically tested whenever there is a large volcanic eruption', and also when there are man-made changes in global SO2 aerosol emissions. Its predictions as to the amount of temperature change to be expected as a result of changes in SO2 aerosol emissions are accurate to within a tenth of a degree Centigrade, or, usually, less.
As a result of this precision, there is simply no room for any additional warming due to greenhouse gasses!
2. This has been submitted to a number of Journals, but is editorially rejected because "it differs too much from what others have written" "We have read your manuscript but will not be printing it" etc. The editors refuse to print anything that questions the "greenhouse gas" hypothesis, or even send it out for review.
Because of this, there are no "peer reviewed" papers with supportive data to cite, although there are a few speculative papers. For example, "Could cuts in sulfur from coal and ships explain the 2015 spurt in Northern Hemisphere temperatures?', and "Why Reducing Sulfate Aerosol Emissions Complicates Efforts to Moderate Climate Change".
Yes, I am awaiting someone who can prove that I am wrong. So far, after many posts, no one has done so.
Photons are literally packets of energy that in specific frequencies interact with greenhouse gases.
'The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. This gives rise to the equation E = hf. E is the energy of the photon. h is Planck's constant (6.63 × 10-34 Js) f is the frequency of the radiation."
The interactions in various ways with more greenhouse gases keep photons in the atmosphere for nanoseconds longer than otherwise - and where there is more energy there is more heat. You only have to look at the oceans.
You can see the result of interactions of photons and greenhouse gas molecules in energy snapshots taken in space through narrow apertures at different times. QED.
You see here examples of what I call skeptical curmudgeons with crude and eccentric theories. Still they are better than pissant progressive urban doofus hipster believers with memes and otherwise scant science.
Yes, after so many posts with more or less the same content you think it's right? Really? You don't worry that there is no reviewed article, bolstering your guesses?? Or could it be that everyone here is tired to contradict anymore? Just like me?
The climate doom and gloom false forecasts is having an effect on young people. Talk with first responders in secondary schools. It is adding to the sense of hopelessness.
Here is a nice compilation of 30 natural systems in which global warming exerts both an effect and the opposite of that effect
It was first posted by Jimbo then re-posted by Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone, with links to papers:
Here they are as a text list:
Amazon dry season greener
Amazon dry season browner
Avalanches may increase
Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though [?]
Bird migrations longer
Bird migrations shorter
Bird migrations out of fashion
Boreal forest fires may increase
Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing
Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler
Columbia spotted frogs decline
Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world
Coral island atolls to sink [?]
Coral island atolls to rise [? – ?]
Earth’s rotation to slow down
Earth’s rotation to speed up
East Africa to get less rain
East Africa to get more rain – pdf
Great Lakes less snow
Great Lakes more snow
Gulf stream slows down (and it causes warming)
Gulf stream speeds up a little (and it also causes warming)
Indian monsoons to be drier
Indian monsoons to be wetter
Indian rice yields to decrease – full paper
Indian rice yields to increase
Latin American forests may decline
Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!
Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]
Malaria may increase
Malaria may continue decreasing
Malaria in Burundi to increase
Malaria in Burundi to decrease [?]
North Atlantic cod to decline
North Atlantic cod to thrive
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease – full pdf
North Atlantic Ocean less salty
North Atlantic Ocean more salty
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline [? – ? – ?]
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow [?]
Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant
Plants move uphill
Plants move downhill [?]
Sahel to get less rain
Sahel to get more rain
Sahel may get more or less rain
San Francisco less foggy
San Francisco more foggy
Sea level rise accelerated
Sea level rise decelerated – full pdf
Soil moisture less
Soil moisture more
Squids get smaller
Squids get larger
Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming [?]
Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling
Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume
UK may get more droughts
UK may get more rain
Wind speed to go up [?]
Wind speed slows down [?]
Wind speed to speed up then slow down
Winters maybe warmer [? – ?]
Winters maybe colder ;O)
“His protagonist, Winston—like Kitty—works for the government in its Ministry of Truth, or Minitrue in Newspeak, where he rewrites historical records to support whatever Big Brother currently says is good for the regime.”
Regime 1 is what the Democrat party has embraced. Regime 2 is what climate science has embraced. Past history continues to change. We can ask is that without bias? The Hockey Stick was an argument about the past. BEST has some plots with wide error bars on the left side of the plots. Dropping those as most other plots do is a rewrite. All false certainty of the past is a rewrite. I used the word all. I write the uncertainty out. Let's go with most instead.
“I feel my cheeks burn as I write this. To integrate the colossal, universal equation! To unbend the wild curve, to straighten’ it out to a tangent—to a straight line! For the United State is a straight line, a great, divine, precise, wise line, the wisest of lines!”
To come up with the ECS. The one number to rule them all. The pursuit of it, with towers of GCMs. To reach to science heaven with more RAM and faster graphics cards. Liquid cooled.
"I agree with Orwell that Zamyatin’s book is deeper than Huxley’s and seems to capture what humanity loses when the state takes over every aspect of life and even lobotomizes thinking citizens who rebel.”
Someone said, some things endure through time. Perhaps the mark of fitness. But fitness in what way? I am not talking about these books, but what these books are against.
Sweeping Civil Rights Lawsuit Alleges Racial Bias In Implementation Of California Climate Policies - Michael Shellenberger
To think that they could get away with cheating the physics of energy generation. They went for the King.
"It’s already been explained to you multiple times."
These links are from the prior post before this one was even out, and at which links I say in reply merely, 'wait for this one'. So indeed in this post, all aspects are covered. And you have not attempted any critique, with any logic chain / specific points using appropriate in context quotes, as to why you disagree with this post.
"...for the curious"
who if they are also inclined to enough perseverance for a long thread, will to date find no workable defence of D&M's framing of 'denialism'.
Organising a weekly school strike may be good click bait, but my local Borough Council has recently opened new schools designed to be self-sufficient in energy.
I suggest COP25 highlights projects like those, which if replicated globally eliminate the entire energy budget of school level education. Of course where extreme winters occur, technology demands are greater.
But technology exists at 50N in a maritime climate today.
Interesting, some pretty heavyweight folks behind this.
What are the objective measures the readers of this site use to determine whether the “climate” has been improving or worsening, say over the last 100 years?
Take the USA as a subset as an example. Where and how has the climate changed and what weight was applied to each to determine whether it was positive or negative overall?
More at issue is whether we want this amount of warming versus two to four times as much by 2100.
ATTP has a post up on the non pause if anyone is interested. My comments. as I find this one of the touchstones of great importance.
“what was meant by a “pause” in global warming.”
A topic of controversy due to the fact that skeptics are supposed to use it to deny global warming from CO2.
A pause should be simple to define but no one wishes to accept common sense definitions because of the ramifications.
“Was it an actual pause?”
Well if someone can find a start and stop date on a set of observations and draw a flat trend line that would be a pause??
“Did it just mean that the trend was lower than the long-term trend?”
Here at least we have the concept of a short term trend being accepted. A short term trend can be flat [AKA as a pause], down, yes down, or up at a rate lower or higher or equal to the long term trend. My answer would be a pause is a pause, a flat trend, not an upward trend lower than the long term trend.
Semantically I have seen this used by people on both sides [Lucia for example] but it is only and always referred to a slower upwards trend rate, not an actual pause which has no upwards trend at all..
Hope this helps.
” Was it based on the uncertainty being large enough that we couldn’t rule out that there had been no warming? ”
The pause, if such there was, was based on up to 20 years of data which showed a flat trend at some stage. This argument conversely could equally be used to deny an upwards trend by those so inclined or blinded.
“Did it refer mainly to a model-observation mismatch?”
While models and observations must by necessity be out of kilter the pause refers to observations only.
“, there wasn’t even a clear definition of what time period was being considered;”
Hence the need for a simple pause definition.
The problem with interpretation is that a pause is dated backwards from when it occurs.
Hence if it is seen and persists the starting point of the pause [which is at the end] moves forwards. At the same time the pause can also extend back further in time as it lengthens if it has a downward continuing trend.
“global warming didn’t “pause”, at least not in the sense of it having done anything unusual,”
Short pauses occur all the time when an end point brings the trend over the preceding interval to zero [or flat]. They are a natural occurrence. Pauses of a week a month or 6 months can be found easily. They occur all through the temperature record documented from 1850 on. There are even periods of falls for years.
Was this pause unusual?
We just do not know. We can surmise, speculate,wish as much as we like but it will take 30 years minimum to actually know somewhat.
frankclimate (and Richard Ellison):
According to the NASA fact sheet on atmospheric aerosols "Stratospheric aerosols reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth's surface, cooling them. Human-made sulfate aerosols "absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface"
I am not guessing, just going where the facts lead me: varying amounts.of atmospheric aerosols WILL affect the amount of the sun's energy reaching the Earth's surface,changing its temperature, and this simple fact cannot be ignored (but is, by all "greenhouse gas" adherents). Perhaps you can scientifically explain why it is ignored, since you appear to be in that camp.
But, of course, you won't, because it doesn't fit your agenda.
If we define climate as a 30-year temperature, there was no pause in its trend.
On Twitter, Judith seemed to endorse this article.
Either a change of view, or she did not read to it the end. It says academics can be activists when there is an emergency, one example given being climate change, another where economists may weigh in on how to handle a recession.
A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and retrospective on the evidence
“In learning lessons from the pause-episode in the GMST record we can describe some elements of the pause-timeline and its consequences. The origin of the 'pause' lay in contrarian narratives about the climate (Mooney 2013, Lewandowsky et al 2015a). With the 'pause' (or 'hiatus'), a false narrative about an alleged inconsistency between natural fluctuations of global temperature and ongoing global warming was inserted into climate discussion. Once the notion of a 'pause' was established, some of the major journals gave prominent feature to articles about it (Nature 2017). The IPCC formalised the 'pause/hiatus' for the climate community in its 5th assessment report by defining and accepting it as an observed fact about the climate system (Stocker et al 2013) [Box TS.3]. Many climatologists also adopted the 'pause' or 'hiatus' into their own language about climate change. The adoption of these terms by the mainstream research community gave the 'pause' further legitimacy, even though they often explained that it was not unusual in the context of natural variability. Whether intended or not, this fed the public narrative that there was a 'pause' in global warming (Mooney 2013). To complete the cycle, researchers and climate institutions have now declared the pause to be 'over', thereby reinforcing the notion that it once existed (Xie and Kosaka 2017, Met Office 2017).”
It's like the Clinton why I lost tour. The last line is great. Donald Trump is elected President. If it's over, it must have existed. The MSM hailed the end of the pause. It was trumpeted from the high heavens. It's like driving off a foe who never invaded. Just like a politician declaring victory.
It was a narrative. It was established. The IPCC was in on it. Mainstream research too even though many of them didn't mean to be. The public narrative was fed.
Is the question ever ask, what's wrong with us? Or is it more, what's wrong with you. When you play politics, you have to bring your A game. Or things will get away from you. They just might do that in any case.