Articles on this Page
- 12/25/18--19:11: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--19:15: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--19:26: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--19:26: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--20:01: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--20:13: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--20:23: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--20:27: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--20:35: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--20:42: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--20:58: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--21:08: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--21:27: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--21:33: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--21:37: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--21:39: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--21:59: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/26/18--00:54: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/26/18--01:05: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/26/18--02:45: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/25/18--19:11: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/25/18--19:15: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/25/18--19:26: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/25/18--19:26: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
- 12/25/18--20:01: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/25/18--20:13: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/25/18--20:23: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/25/18--20:27: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
- 12/25/18--20:35: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/25/18--20:58: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/25/18--21:08: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/25/18--21:27: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/25/18--21:37: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/25/18--21:59: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/26/18--00:54: Comment on Week in review – science edition by melitamegalithic
- 12/26/18--01:05: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington
- 12/26/18--02:45: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid
The IPCC call it the Planck feedback - Isaac Held the temperature feedback. It is simply that a warmer planet emits exponentially more IR.
It is getting creepy now Jimbo.
Feeding back to what exactly? It's not the kind you get in the feedback loop circuit for sure because it doesn't affect the source.
The negative lapse rate feedback increases IR losses to space on a warmer planet. So does the temperature feedback. That should be obvious.
It should be obvious the Ice Sheet is inherently unstable, something that has been repeated in numerous papers. When water is lapping at the ice 24/7 and subglacial conditions are warmed by the ground, things get a little sloppy.
Just curious, does the establishment offer classes to novice climate scientists on how to do interviews? I’ve noticed every article includes phrases such as “it’s worse than we thought “ and “we were really shocked “ or “we were surprised “. Don’t they have a clue? Or is it part of the public relations effort to get the public all ginned up and ready to run for the hills, hopefully at a higher elevation.
It gets a little tedious after reading the same narrative a couple of hundreds of times. Especially after having read it from 30 or 40 years ago and having the predictions fall flat on their faces. But, it’s a new generation and the level of gullibility seems to be inexhaustible.
The temperature does not feed back. The temperature responds. The IR does not feed back. It is emitted as a response. This is a loose use of the word. This is not called a no-feedback response for nothing.
You can't see how increased IR emissions from a warmer planet is a negative feedback? You are on your own there #jimbo. Don't have a meltdown.
Your definition of a negative feedback also includes a standard positive feedback. It's your problem.
The WAIS is worse than they thought, and worse than the skeptics still think. Thoughts evolve on climate change effects, and not so often for the better. We'll also be saying this about sea levels soon because the IPCC has been severely cautious about factoring these effects in.
It is not my definition but the IPCC and Isaac Held - and everyone else but the blog you got this meme from. The state variable is forcing and the planetary response is to cancel it out. The temperature feedback increases IR losses exponentially from a warming planet (negative feedback) - clouds in a warming world may increase SW warming (positive feedbback). It is clear that in imaging that I, the IPCC and Isaac Held have conflated positive and negative feedbacks that you don't have the slightest freakin' clue.
Re: <i>"I addressed the stratosphere issue. The stratosphere cooled. The point is that one output functional can fortuitously have the same sign as the data and its scientifically not meaningful."</i>
No, you didn't adequately address it, because you have no clue what it means. Hence your claim that "its scientifically not meaningful". This is basic climatology, dpy. It's not that hard. Go do some reading on causal attribution:
[Table 1 on page 5: <i>"Executive Summary: Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere - Understanding and reconciling differences"</i>]
Re: <i>"And you are in this way mischaracterizing what matt said. On the broader point he is right."</i>
I'm trying to hand-hold you and matthew through collegiate-level causal attribution in climate science. It's difficult since neither of you actually engage the evidence.
"What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty... which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible. . ." F. A. Hayek
I have wondered for a considerable time what a truly liberal programme would look like. Something that is not merely a reaction to progressive social engineering ambitions. Something that can engage the imagination by addressing concerns of the populace more generally.
Top 10 non-economic concerns - Gallup Nov 2018
Dissatisfaction with government/Poor leadership
Unifying the country
Lack of respect for each other Ethics/moral/religious/family decline
Economics trumps these as an issue of concern by a wide margin. But ideally we can bring everything together in a broad understanding that social progress, economic growth and environmental restoration conservation are not merely compatible but interdependent. Economic growth creates resources to solve a wide range of health, education and environmental problems. What we continue to lack is any sort of a programme for reclaiming this principle – of economic progress and truly sustainable development – back from increasingly strident anti-democratic and anti-capitalist voices. Nor do we have much in the way of a philosophical underpinning – the foundations on which a sound future and political success is built.
Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement production – from 1750 to 2011 – was about 365 billion metric tonnes as carbon (GtC), with another 180 GtC from deforestation and agriculture. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) had accumulated in terrestrial ecosystems.
It is possible to return most of the atmospheric carbon increase to vegetation and soils in ways that improve agricultural productivity, enhance food security, conserve biodiversity and create more flood and drought tolerant food production systems. While buying time for the development of 21st century energy systems to supply cheap and abundant energy for the essential needs of humanity.
Does that prove the greenhouse gases, ozone depleting substances, changes in atmospheric circulation, solar variability or clouds have an influence on the temperature structure of the atmosphere? Do we need to? It does show the need to continue to refine observations and to improve model structures (Slingo and Palmer 2011).
And the guy still comes across as a massive tool. Yawn.
"Rising eustatic sea levels and temperatures were major climate- related drivers of ice-sheet retreat during and after the last glacial ter-mination. By contrast, it appears that climate-independent lithospheric rebound and ice-shelf grounding were the main drivers of grounding- line re-advance during the Holocene. The impact of rebound on the ice sheet depends sensitively on bedrock topography and mantle viscosity (seeMethods). Accurate mapping of potential grounding points and improved parameterization of uplift are needed to forecast the direction and rate of future grounding-line migration in West Antarctica."
Yes I have read the original article - and I quite like Earth system science - but I am a little bored with speculative climate porn. Come back with something better founded.
And it makes absolutely no difference to rational social, economic or environmental policy.
Re: <b>"And then there is the proof text quoting with no way to know if the quoted text is a fair representation or not. It’s like arguing with a political operative who simply cannot fairly respond on any point. They focus on secondary or irrelevant points and quote their authority sources (selecting the parts they like) to justify themselves."</b>
...says the person citing non-peer-reviewed blog articles from Nic Lewis, in order to dodge what the peer-reviewed literature shows. Priceless.
Re: <b>"Sanakan is using a classical polemical trick of diverting attention from the obvious truth of your point by focusing on a single issue about the stratosphere where its hard to know if he is right or not."</b>
It's not hard to figure out whether I'm right about the topic, for anyone who actually reads and understand the published literature. This issue has largely been clears since the 1960s and 1970s. Given that, I understand why it's hard for you to figure it out, since Nic Lewis probably hasn't told you yet what to think in the non-peer-reviewed articles of his you cite without having understood.
And your definition of soon is?
Re: <i>"The IPCC predicted +1°C by 2025 in 1990. After 80% of the time, only 30% of the warming has taken place."</i>
From folks who are much more forthright in their representation of the scientific evidence than you are:
Hello!!! I have read, quoted and analysed the literature whose titles he listed. I occasionally audit the lists he provides. Quite often they are at odds and far more nuanced than his singular obsession with fingerprints. Do we still need to prove that greenhouse gases influence the temperature profile of the atmosphere? Shouldn't of thought so. Beyond that is a deep ignorance of clouds, atmospheric and ocean circulation chaos as sources of perpetual climate change, the core sensitive dependence and structural instability behaviors of climate models - without which it is all just thrashing about on the surface of Earth system science. Sometimes he is so far off track that I wonder if he has done more than read the title and assume it is relevant.
Then there is the constant and tedious posturing about contrarions that comprise the bulk of his largely unreadable comments. Yawn again.
“Some 125,000 years ago, ----- ". Meaningless but not religious. It is too far in the past. Sink and rebound is faster than that. It is evident in the Med from the last 8000 yrs because tell-tales of human origin make that clear. What happened in the Med happened elsewhere too ( eg see Dogger-land)
What is more important is that the events were not long-time occurring but abrupt (again as per evidence), which makes hog-wash of some studies that ignore evident facts.
Sorry you have so bad an infection that your mind is no longer thinking straight.
Take some aspirin and call me in the morning, for details of a course in Elementary Science with a minor in logic.
If you say so, Jim. Yes, thoughts do evolve, such as a newly released paper that identified VLM having such a dominant effect on varying SLR rates along the East Coast. Duh! But they notched up another research paper and again were able to say they were “ surprised “. This scientifically illiterate retired budget director wasn’t surprised, having read the same conclusions from numerous sources years ago.
The big enchiladas for me the next couple of years will be whether the AMO flips, thereby affecting the Arctic Sea Ice extent, and whether the IPCC displays some old fashioned Tom Mix bravado and addresses head on the effects of geothermal activity on the Ice Sheets.
Regarding your comment about sea levels soon. Here is what I do when I read those kinds of comments. I go back and read all those articles predicting the apocalypse from 30 or 40 or 100 years ago and then sit down, have a Manhattan, put a wet wash cloth on my forehead and sleep like a baby.